I've put in my redirects
http://wikileaks.fallguytheatre.com/
http://wikileaks.amidlife.com/

both resolve to http://88.80.13.160/

The important thing to remember is how under trained the TSA is, these are just kids. When I fly I'm often going there via commuter rail early in the morning at the same time as a bunch of TSA kids. They look like they're all 19, never considered going to college and act like it.

I think the comparison to Israel is unfair. Israeli security isn't just for show, those folks are highly trained and there are real rebels trying to get through.

If the TSA is being taught to recognize facecrime it is probably from a video that lasts a half hour. As always, this is a smoke screen in more than one way. On the one hand they can start telling people they are engaged in some really advanced psychological screening techniques and look how much we're doing to prevent another attack....and on the other hand they suddenly get a great cover for pulling out of line anyone they want. They can engage in racial profiling or any other kind of profiling (or, based on the intelligence of these kids, it's just as likely to be "hot girl who you wouldn't mind spending 30 minutes talking in a small private room to" profiling) and have a perfect cover. If somebody complains about what the hell they are being detained for they can just be told...well you had a bad expression when we looked at you. "What are you kidding, my daughter was telling me a joke I was laughing hysterically and very happy because we're finally taking the vacation we always dreamed of." "Well yes, that's true, but for one instant I saw a tell-tale tic."

And presto...you've lost the argument, because who could defend against an assertion like that? Hell, I rarely notice when I give huge sighs that make other people think something is wrong...let alone some kind of tic or momentary scowl.

The important thing to remember is that it is all bullshit. If they were serious about this (and there is a myriad of reasons not to be serious about this) they would use smarter, better trained scary people. Unfortunately, they use those people elsewhere where they can do real damage.

Okay...so they're not giving our children just lead any more. China is substituting GHB for a non-toxic glue in a popular, award-winning candy-looking toy. How come we were all concerned when Communists weren't putting fluoride in our water (which is beneficial) but the guvmn't doesn't seem unduly concerned when they actually do start giving our children GHB ... an agent designed to knock out and make its victim compliant and threaten their life. (G. Orwell? China calling.) Somebody explain to me, in very small words, why this is not a no brainer trade embargo. I understand it would devastate the US economy. That's not a good thing. But they're giving our children GHB! You know that story where Faust gets a bunch of the good times for a while by knowingly signing away his soul? Sure, we're enjoying insanely cheap goods while China buys our dollars thus putting off our economic collapse. Yet I don't remember voting on signing away the soul of our entire country. Blockade the ports. It's time for the Portland Tea Party.

Alright what left wing nut is going to play a ridiculous Orwell card first? I don't know why you think this is a bad idea. This is simply another example of Bush's more efficient style of government. It skips the middleman. Why pay someone to ask questions when you can ask yourself for free? This follows a history of good decisions. In a system such as ours the rich get richer right? If you put in socialist programs to benefit the poor they end up buying more things which makes money flow to the rich. It's much simpler and more efficient to simply give all the money to the rich to begin with. And besides, they already have the accounts and knowledge to put that money to good use making more money. The poor would just blow it all on food, shelter and basic medical care.

I do however think this program needs to be expanded. Right now they give the press conferences and ask the questions, but they still make us the audience. It would be much cheaper, faster and easier for the people if they simply filmed their press conference, asked themselves the questions, and then, on closed circuit tv, viewed the press conference themselves there in the room on projected screens in real time. That way we wouldn't even have to listen to them. And best of all...we would all learn exactly the same amount of information that we would have if we had actually watched the conference.

Minx, I go for side rail in front of Jonny or Ed. For your commitment to rationality and general sanity, your rail spot on the Thom side of me is assured. I'm adelaney on atease, not that I've really posted much at all since the great board crash of 2003. Your board? And Caffeina? Roll on roley wheel. You rock.

So wait....If I release a product for free but offer an avenue for donations if the consumer desires to pay me for it and am entirely up front about the contents of that product...and then I later issue another product that contains some of the original content and additional content for pay...that's morally questionable?

Just exactly in what way was the download/box set different from what it was presented as? They said it was 160kbps. It was. They said that it currently was the only way to receive the album. It was. They said the download only version was 10 tracks and more were available for a higher price. It was.

No, I don't care for Bon Jovi or Nickleback. I'm not even sure that's how you spell Nickleback. But if I understand correctly you (Phil J Leitch) are saying that Radiohead, at the time of issuing (holy shit) a free product, should have stated all the other avenues that they would in future release the current content before they offered (not even asked for...but offered) an avenue for donations. This seems in no way different from objecting to a chef putting out a tip jar because the pie you received for free was later offered to everyone, including you, with a cherry on top for a specified payment while the pie was still available for free without the cherry. Yes, I am a crazy wacked out Radiohead fan who stands in line for hours for the front row of concerts. Yes, I am so insane as to buy every official release they put out. Nevertheless, I don't think I'm crazy to hypothesize that you, sir, are completely out of your mind.

First of all, I would like to say that this thread is perhaps one of the greatest discussions of the future of moral commerce over digital distribution that I have read in a long time.

Secondly, there doesn't seem to be much of anyone coming to the defense of Xeni Jardin here, so I want to take a step back and really try to understand her argument which she doesn't believe I am understanding. Okay, I think she was saying that the nugget of truth of her argument was in this statement:

"The point is this: it would appear from statements made by band members and reps, and from the release itself that the digital product was released as an incomplete product at a lower quality than it could have been for the specific purpose of encouraging CD sales."

This makes sense, I don't agree that it was for the specific purpose of encouraging CD sales, mostly because I don't think they would need any encouragement given how famous a band they are, but this seems to be a valid argument. The lower quality part is a given. 160kbps is not equal to CD quality. Fine. My counter to this would simply be that to release in flac, SHN or the like to millions of fans would not be economical without a minimum fee. I think at this point Radiohead is pretty much fine with risking only breaking even. But if I were in the room I would shout down the suggestion of releasing over the Internet with current bandwidth costs at lossless quality. Internet distribution is no longer virtually free when you're trying to deliver half a gig of data to every user. You would not break even with this model, that's a lot of data. 1.2 million x .5GB? Yowch. Not to mention you'd have to deal with the support issues of a legion of fans not knowing what to do with SHN or flac.

Obviously we're squabling over small arguments, except that there are larger implications here for what Radiohead have done. Should this model spread? Jardin seems to imply that there are a significant number of users that would count this as such an inferior quality product that they would want to upgrade. I don't agree. 160kbps seems fine to most users. Secondly she claims this is an incomplete product. Again, though it's been stated before, I don't agree. The album is the album, the bonus tracks are the bonus tracks. Saying they should have released the bonus tracks with the album strikes me as similar to a departing customer, having forked over their $9 for a movie ticket, grumbling that they didn't get the outtakes and deleted scenes with their big screen movie ticket.

Finally, the heart of her argument suggests that it was the intent, not the content of the band's actions which register concern. I.e. they wanted to sell more discs. Okay, maybe. I don't deny that they're going to make more money this way. The recording industry would screw them out of most of their profit the traditional way. I just don't understand why this is a bad thing. Xeni, please be as clear as you can because honestly this is where change takes place, in weird random conversations like this. Obviously you're happy about the way the band distributed, you just think there is a better way. Are you saying that ideally they would release over the internet in lossless and then have a CD release? I can't imagine you're hoping they would have no CD release at all, because, like it or not, not everybody is wired and to not release in physical form at this point in history, I believe, is elitist and wrong. To say that you have to be connected to the internet to receive an important piece of art, at a time in history when plenty of elderly people in the developed world haven't the faintest idea how to connect to the internet is irresponsible. I don't believe you are saying this. I believe you are making a very small, valid point. You want them to release the entire album plus bonus tracks in lossless quality. I think someday this might be practical. But today, I would not recommend it. If anyone at W.A.S.T.E. suggested they should I would tell them to take a hike. It's too much data. At the very least I don't think you should be disappointed that they didn't release the album exactly as you would have done. Anymore than you should be disappointed that Newton didn't come up with the theory of relativity. We stand on the shoulders of giants and all that. This was groundbreaking for the industry, can't we just leave it at that? I know you're proud of Radiohead too. I personally don't think they should take a loss on their album. I think releasing it in lossless gives a significant risk of taking a loss. I don't believe they give two craps about whether someone downloads it or gets it via their little mini record deal. They want to make sure it's available for everyone.

Xeni. I'm really trying here. I think boingboing is a bastion of what the internet can be, a website on a hill if you will. And your podium does not shout into the wind. Your podium is important. People pay attention to this blog. If I'm interpreting your argument correctly, you're asking Radiohead to give terabytes of bandwidth and expect end users to understand how much that costs and donate reparations to offset that cost. I don't think that's legitimate. I really believe you should give your full-throated support to this release.

If I'm wrong, if your argument is smaller than that...if you're only saying that it is wrong to give away something with the idea that you will be paid back in physical sales....I'm afraid I just don't understand. Yes, they probably could have released in 192kbps. It would have delayed the release to tens of thousands of fans, but they could have done it. This seems to be a minor judgement call that is quite legitimate. Going beyond 192 to 320 to me seems unreasonable. Therefore...your main argument seems to boil down to the idea that it is wrong, fundamentally, to promote physical sales by any free, open means. I am a socialist. I do not understand that argument.

Okay...you don't think it's a complete product. Given. Then any album released without its bsides is an incomplete product right? You think it could have been released in higher quality. Given. Then releasing at normal quality is disappointing? It is wrong to release for free digitally with the expectation that physical sales will offset that. Given. So the expectation of profit itself is immoral?

I'm pretty far left, and I don't agree. I do believe in the idea that anything you create is yours to do with as you please. I also believe it is morally better to release something of value to the greatest extent you can for free to as many people as you can for the purpose of improving the general welfare. I also believe it is legitimate to design a model that means you can return your losses in the hopes of creating more in the future that you can release to the general public. If I interpret your argument correctly, you're saying that NPR should be castigated because it doesn't release its product in high definition radio simply because it can. I just don't get it Xeni. I really don't. Can't we just call this an incredibly idealistic experiment that will pave the way for more? Given that your site is ad-supported, shouldn't we be grateful that theirs isn't? I bought the discbox, that transaction is equal...40 pounds spent, 40 pounds of merchandise at some point will be delivered. I also donated a further 15 pounds to the band, to offset those who could not or would not afford to pay a reasonable price for the digital download, because I believe in rewarding idealism. I believe that, given that I am a middle class American, I am super rich on the world stage and I believe the world deserves Radiohead's music. I believe that my donation makes it likely that they will be able to deliver their music to greater numbers of people at low or no cost. I also believe that if they offered a pay what you will model at lossless quality less people would end up hearing their music. Their downloads would be abandoned. Successful downloads would be disgarded in frustration at not being able to decode the data. And bandwidth that could have been spent delivering the basics of the data to millions was squandered by delivering perfect audio to a few. I think it is elitest and wrong to claim that you deserve lossless quality while others have nothing. I think someone in Africa is downloading lossy mp3s over a pay network that they couldn't afford to keep running while rich Westerners tie up the servers downloading lossless recordings. I think it is irresponsible to castigate an organization for risking stacks of money buying a legitimate delivery device, because they didn't risk ten stacks of money buying an overwhelming delivery device.

I think it is irresponsible because you own a legitimate podium on the internet stage to declare what is good and beneficial to humanity and what is detrimental to the people at large. I think it is irresponsible because in some slight way I think it discourages other organizations from following in Radiohead's brave footsteps. I believe, though I admit out of humility that I may still not understand what precisely you mean, that you should issue a retraction.

" I don't need no stinkin' CDs, or vinyl, though it's great if others prefer that, to each his own. Why not go end to end digital? I think that's lame."

I think you kinda answer your own question. It's great if others prefer that, why go end to end digital? Because others prefer physical releases. I prefer that. I know I'm a big dumb Radiohead fan, but Stanley Donwood's art is a huge part of my love of Radiohead. It creates a sense of place, a visual dimension to the music. The weeping minotaur, the nonesuch library, the post-apocalyptic mood are part of the richness of Radioheadness. Yes, they could issue a little pdf with artwork. But I don't want a stupid pdf with artwork. And I spend 50% of my 24 hour day at a computer. I want a book like the Amnesiac book that I can leaf through while listening to the music and fill up on. There's a romance there, a tactile relationship with the art. I wouldn't give that up just so that the sum total of the experience could be pay what you will. To me, that's like wishing there was no filet mignon in the world so that the experience of eating a free bowl of soup could be the ultimate. That's like the joke in Henry V, where old Sir Thomas Erpingham prefers the hard, cold ground of the battlefield of France because now he can say, "Now lie I like a king."

I respect your desire for the entire experience to be digital. But I also respect the band's respect for other points of view.

Rlly? h gsh, Ms. Jrdn. Okay...maybe the rep said that. I don't think that statement from the rep makes any sense however and given how paranoid this whole thing has got to have made the recording industry I'm not believing anything that sounds completely irrational. But even if he did say it, it makes no sense. The discbox doesn't come out until December and is priced for hardcore fans. The kind of fans that download the leak, download twenty concerts, and still buy the album and all singles multiple times. Now the CD, the traditional record release, of which you speak comes out next year. Next year. They have made this huge window for everyone that has access to the Internet to get the record. Not only to get it but to then become excited about more current music. If they'd released 3/4 of the album on the Internet and then released the CD two weeks later you'd have a case. But I'm wracking my brain and I can't think of a single other thing the band could have done to make this release better. Yes, sure they could have released it under CC license. But failing that.... I mean, it's great that they're releasing a CD. The internet is not as ubiquitous as we all think it is. Many people in the world have no access to the internet who do have access to some disposable income. Furthermore bandwidth costs a lot of money and offering flac or something for pay what you will would have kept the tracks from many fans trying to access the server. If bandwidth was better I'm sure they would release CD quality.

I'm sorry you think this puts even the slightest blemish on this beautiful release. I'm sorry in some sense this was ruined for you. But I don't see the blemish, maybe you think I've blinded myself I don't know. I still, two weeks later, get a little teary when I think of what my favorite band has done. I'm so proud of them I could burst.

Looking forward to your future posts.

Xeni. I'm sorry...I don't think you should try to defend this one. I think you should issue a retraction. "Lame"? Seriously? You just state in your comment your post was meant to say that the release was a loss leader. Yet your post claimed there was a possibility they made $10 million dollars. I'm not sure exactly how much money it cost to make the album...but I'm guessing it was less than $10 million dollars. Even if they didn't expect to make that much, even if they'd hoped for $1 million it wouldn't be a loss leader. Ms. Jardin...you are a wonderful gift to the internet. This is not your finest post.

Yeah I gotta say...all respect to BB and all...this is a fantastic site. But the headline of this post has got to be one of the dumbest in its history. Kinda like the daily tv news that comes in with headlines like:

"Yogurt: what you don't know could kill you!"

And then the story follows something along the lines of: "A man in Duluth, Minnesota was killed from eating yogurt Friday. The coroner traced the cause of death to a tub of Dannon yogurt. 'It wasn't the first tub of yogurt he'd eaten that day,' said Ronald Heathton, the county coroner. 'The first tub didn't kill him. Based on the contents of his stomach we're presuming that it was something on the order of the 250th tub of yogurt he'd eaten that day that finally did him in.' Dannon could not be reached for comment, and has certainly not issued a recall. Brian?" "Thanks Sharon, scary stuff yes?" "Very much so Brian, watch out for those active cultures." "Will do. In other news, books have recently been proven to prevent ignorance!"