"Eyes on the Prize" Press Coverage

Posted by Doug Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:07:00 GMT

I was contacted today by a local reporter who had found out I was participating in EyesOnTheScreen by organizing a screening of “Eyes on the Prize”. He said he’s running a piece in the Sunday paper about it. I’m excited about the publicity. I’d love to have a good crowd next Tuesday.

There was some concern by my church leaders about hosting the screening. They were concerned about three issues: the content of the video, the legality of showing the video, and security for the building. The last issue is one I had largely overlooked, but is a good thing to think about. Our building is largely in-securable. What I mean is the outside doors lock, but almost none of the offices, class rooms, hallways, or supply rooms lock. One of there requests was to make sure there were four or five people at the event who could help direct traffic towards the auditorium and keep the other areas “off limits.”

As far as content goes, several of the church leaders had seen the video series already and could attest to both the quality of the production and that the content was appropriate to show in a church building.

The legality is another issue all together. It all boils down to Fair Use. If you’ve been following the EyesOnTheScreen event, you probably know that one of the larger sites hosting a screening has said they aren’t going to be able host because of legal reasons. I actually talked to Tiffiniy Cheng of Downhill Battle on the phone about the issue. She said she had talked with the EFF about it. It turns out some lawyer representing some unknown client told the School Board (where the screening was to be hosted) that they didn’t have a license to show the video. The school board lawyer wasn’t well versed in copyright law and said he’d have to believe this unknown law firm until he was able to research it further. My understanding is the EFF helped provide a pro bono lawyer (although the lawyer may not be directly employed by the EFF) who specializes in copyright law to represent the school board. Tiffiniy implied that the screening would continue as scheduled based on the school board’s revised understanding.

So where does that leave me? No one’s contacted me in a legal sense about the screening I’m hosting. I proactively contacted a friend of mine who’s a lawyer to ask about it. She put me in contact with an associate who specializes in copyright and intellectual property. We discussed the issue over the phone. She said she wasn’t able to give me legal advice based on the limited information she had, but that she believed my showing the video would be fair use.

I gave all this information to the elders of our church tonight. They agreed to let me host the screening as long as I was able to get some people to help me manage the actual event and as long as I would provide them with a letter indemnifying them. I’m willing to do both of those things. I’m pretty excited. It makes me feel like I’m part of something big.

Posted in  | no comments

"Eyes on the Prize" Screening

Posted by Doug Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:55:00 GMT

I have received permission from my Church to use our building to show “Eyes on the Prize”. I’ll be showing at least the first episode at 8:00pm, February 8th. If you live near Cincinnati, I encourage you to come. The address is:

Northeast Church of Christ
12020 Southwick Ln
Cincinnati, OH 45241

You can contact me by email or call me directly for more information (513-295-2844).

Posted in  | no comments

Smart Thinking

Posted by Doug Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:21:00 GMT

There are few guys that I classify as some our “Smartest Thinkers”. Bruce Schneier is probably one of the smartest guys working in the security business.

Imagine for a minute that Secure Flight is perfect. That is, we can ensure that no one can fly under a false identity, that the watch lists have perfect identity information, and that Secure Flight can perfectly determine if a passenger is on the watch list: no false positives and no false negatives. Even if we could do all that, Secure Flight wouldn’t be worth it.

Secure Flight is a passive system. It waits for the bad guys to buy an airplane ticket and try to board. If the bad guys don’t fly, it’s a waste of money. If the bad guys try to blow up shopping malls instead of airplanes, it’s a waste of money.

If I had some millions of dollars to spend on terrorism security, and I had a watch list of potential terrorists, I would spend that money investigating those people. I would try to determine whether or not they were a terrorism threat before they got to the airport, or even if they had no intention of visiting an airport. I would try to prevent their plot regardless of whether it involved airplanes. I would clear the innocent people, and I would go after the guilty. I wouldn’t build a complex computerized infrastructure and wait until one of them happened to wander into an airport.

It just doesn’t make security sense.

That’s my usual metric when I think about a terrorism security measure: Would it be more effective than taking that money and funding intelligence, investigation, or emergency response—things that protect us regardless of what the terrorists are planning next. Money spent on security measures that only work against a particular terrorist tactic, forgetting that terrorists are adaptable, is largely wasted.

By the way, I’m filing this article under “Politics” because it seems that politicians are making security decisions more and more. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of reasoning to it either.

Posted in  | no comments

Older posts: 1 2 3 4 5

Copyright 2001 - 2005 by Lathi.net and Doug Alcorn

Creative Commons, Some Rights Reserved Ruby on Rails Developer Powered by Debian GNU/Linux Powered by Typo