Slashdot Mirror

At first glance, one might attribute that statement to a computer-illiterate senator or to an incompetent journalist. You may be surprised, then, to find that this quote was from Ken Thompson in 1995. Yes, one of our own - a creator of the UNIX system and the command line we use every single day - condemned the antisocial activities of malicious computer users. Which leads me to ask: why aren't we listening, and where is our moral compass?

A few years ago, it was all the media's fault: the media gave much attention to antisocial criminals who happened to use computers. Nowadays, computer crime is rarely front-page news, especially in light of the recent terrorist attacks caused by the usual suspects. So what kind of notoriety, then, are these criminally insane geeks seeking? The fact of the matter is that the open source community here on Slashdot is not only tolerating illicit behavior; it is encouraging it. We are partially responsible for every Brian West, Eric Corley, Dmitri Skylarov, Ted Felten, Randal Schwartz,, and DrinkOrDie member. We are harboring criminals because we are glorifying their acts and lauding them for "civil disobedience." We are not unlike the Arabs who cheered as they watched the Twin Towers collapse on their (banned) TV sets. And like those ungrateful Arabs, we owe our prosperity to the American government and the capitalist society that so many users here seem to despise. We have become our own enemy.

We, as a community, need to stop tolerating this behavior. Instead of encouraging people like Jon Johansen by sending money to the EFF to help them keep these ingrates' lilly white asses out of jail, we need to send a strong message that computer crime is not consistent with our ethical standards. We need to lead by example - log off of Gnutella, start paying for software (even Windows), stop cracking your DVDs and eBooks "for fun," and start acting like an upstanding citizen. It is only then that the powers that be will start taking us seriously and repeal the DMCA/SSSCA/PATRIOT legislation, and start giving us our rights back. It is crystal clear that we will not get our rights back a moment before we get out of the business of producing criminals, and the first step is to stop empathizing with them.

freebsd guy

I tend to take an active interest in technology related issues affecting Australia especially after reading a lot about all the trouble and illogic ensuing from the DMCA in US. (arrghh...)

I worked until recently for what was (before OzEmail F***ed it up, but thats a different story all together...) Queensland's Largest ISP, and the first real news and discussion of the problems with Australia's Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 that I read was from 2600!

My former workmates will testify that after reading the amendment, I stood up from my desk and said, "Thats it! Im moving to the moon!"

It just infuriates me junk that governments are passing as legislation. I can't express how bewildered I was when after feeling sad for the people of America after how stupid their DMCA turned out that we had one that was pretty much the same!

The only consolation we have is that big business in Australia hasn't started (yet, touchwood...) suing people etc left right and centre like in the US for anything that they think might be covered by our equivailent of the DMCA. "Oh, oh, you figured out how to take the label off a beer bottle and put it on inside the bottle! Oh, you must be circumventing our patented label technology... CEASE AND DESIST, CEASE AND DESIST!" "Yeah, but i paid for the beer?"

Also, the government supposedly consults industry groups, ISPs, etc while putting together legislation like this. But they dont actually listen. I heard objections and comments on fesability from Australia's largest ISPs and they were just ignored.

*bir0 pulls his hair out.

I dont see the logic

Thats my 2. I can be contacted on the moon if anyone needs me.

-bir0

Thanks to 2600 Magazine and The EFF , we all have a legal precedent for the right to link from our sites to wherever we wish (More info at 2600). Might this also apply to linking from our emails, thus invalidating the patent? Which takes precedent? I would imagine a judge and/or jury.

Well, gillbates -- I have to hand it to you because your argument shows you are a very smart and innovative thinker. I am even more impressed if it turns out that you are not a lawyer. You have made an argument very similar to the one that Ford's lawyers made.

It helps to read the papers that were actually filed with the court -- especially this one.

As you will see, we [in other words, my clients 2600 and Corley, and me, the lawyer who represented them in the case] have already fully adressed your argument. We have already explained -- with considerable legal authority to back up our argument -- exactly why FORD's position was completely wrong on this score, as a matter of law. And Judge Cleland (who has hardly expressed any eagerness to be a "friend of 2600" squarely agreed with 2600's argument.

That said, you are in the company of some very smart an creative people. The lawyer who argued the case for FORD, and who came up with the same argument you did, is named Tom Lee. He is a former law clerk to Hon. Clarence Thomas and teaches law (IMHO, teaches it wrong, but that's what he does) at a school out in Utah. He was also a law clerk on the Fourth Circuit (the most "conservative" of the United States Courts of Appeals).

Tom Lee has been very active for many years in the Federalist Society -- an organization that is dedicated to packing the Federal bench with ideological "conservatives." Spencer Abraham (former Senator from Michigan) -- the sponsor of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act -- was one of the founding members of the Federalist Society, and made sure that Greg Phillips, Tom Lee's law partner, was invited to testify in favor of the ACPA. Ted Olsen (the guy who argued the Bush v. Gore case for Bush) is also a big Federalist Society member and booster.

And, through Alberto Gonzalez -- who plays a big role in the Bush White House, the Federalist Society looks poised to do a lot more damage to the federal bench in years to come.

Please do your part to get the word out on some of the hypocrisy that the Federalist Society is pushing through the legislative process, and which hypocrisy the EFF is helping to expose.

Remember what Professor Lessig said just a couple of days ago -- "Sometimes when I read Slashdot debates, I wonder whether you guys get this connection either. . . . [T]hese debates about freedom get bogged down on these pages. And this leads me to the greatest pessimism: If you guys don't get the importance of neutral and open platforms to innovation and creativity; if you get bogged down in 20th century debates about libertarianism and property rights; if you can't see how the .commons was critical to the .com revolution, then what do expect from judges?

You guys . . . built an architecture of value. Until you can begin to talk about those values, and translate them for others, courts and policy makers generally will never get it. . . .

We need translators. We need to translate the values of the network into terms that nontechnical people get. And we need to watch for changes in the architecture or mix of technologies layered into the network, and raise warnings about how those changes will alter the environment for innovation and creativity. As one of my heroes in the law, James Boyle, puts it, we need an environmentalism for the Internet. You are the environmental experts. You can credibly show the world how changes in the ecology of the Internet will destroy the environment for creativity, innovation, and freedom that it produced.

Will you do that? Again, I am skeptical. Rather than trying to focus this debate, or agree on ways to make others understand, you guys immediately turn these questions into irrelevant bickerings. When someone reported that I had written a book described as the "Silent Spring" of the Internet, that opened up a thread about whether in fact DDT had harmed the environment. Someday, when freedom is gone, and all we've got is the right to whisper our thoughts to those closest to us, our children will look back and ask, why did we think we had the luxury to quibble?

But if you don't want to become translators, if you don't want to write environmental impact statements, if you don't want to try to convince the North in California that if it gets taken over by the South, freedom and innovation ends, then you could do as Torvalds has recommended: give money to those who are fighting the battle, in particular, EFF. I'm on the board of EFF, so blissfully biased about to whom. But whether EFF or someone else, follow Torvalds and the other christ-figures in history: Tithe. Take the cost of Internet access (whether you pay it or not) for one year; send 10% to an organization fighting for your freedom."

Thanks for your attention.

I'm relieved to know that he is going to be the set free. I've been very vocal about this at my school ever since it happend. This has been a global embarrassment for our country and our system of laws.

But the DMCA needs to be defeated by an amendment, not by the court system. If the DMCA were found to be flawed by the courts, all they would do (I believe) would be to change it just a little just for the particularities of that case. We need to keep pushing our congressmen to do away with this horrible law once and for all.

Footnote - I'm just repeating what I heard Isaac say once on Off the Hook. So credits to go him.

The magazine is quite funny... they have a pdf of the second edition on their site. Its full of gems like:

Spoofing e-mail by telneting to an SMTP server
Flooding servers by leaving 'ping -t' running

and the rest of seems to be want ads where they can try and trade their DVD's and warez...

They so want to be compared to something like 2600

Also, if you look at the actual decision, there were 12 amicus curae briefs filed in favor of the defendant (2600). Only 3 were filed in favor of the plaintiff (MPAA), the 2nd of which was filed on behalf of the NFL & MLB by David Kendall, Clinton's personal attorney during the impeachment.

What specifically makes him unsympathetic?

He publishes the magazine 2600. Read the judge's decision he clearly thought Corley was a Hacker/Cracker, and published a magazine for teaching other people how to hack into systems and steal information. Read the decision (it used to be posted on 2600

i'm not that good with the 2600 case because i stopped listing to there off the hook show,(i live in the tristate area i get it live not the streaming crap)

As an avid OTH the user, I highly recommend the show to keep on top of what's going on in the world concerning your rights and topics concering hackers. I agree the streaming isn't all that great, which is why I download unstreamed MP3s. Not only that, but I also make them available on Morpheus. Specifically, the filenamess like

2600 - Off The Hook - WBAI 99.5FM - WBCQ 7415kHz Shortwave - NYC 8PM EST

I'm not sure if any other users are sharing 2600 OTH shows, but hopefully they'll become more downloaded (and therefore more downloadable) as the law continues to step on our freedoms.

I'm eager to find out what Goldstein has to say about DMCA 2 in OTH 11/27/01.

Hello, it doesn't belong here, but, as the slashdot authors *rejected* the story:

2001-11-28 23:52:31 2600 lost the appeal (articles,censorship) (rejected)

The news is just in, 2600 lost the appeal. Nothing more is known. Furthermore, the felton countersuit was thrown out. http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=852

It is a dark day.

From the "Beyond Hope" Hacker Conference:
(streaming real audio)

Social Engineering

It was quite entertaining as well as educational.

Another Soc Eng panel from the "Hope 2000" Conference:

Social Engineering Panel

We already have plenty of laws to land computer criminals in jail, and many have already been convicted and are currently serving time.

Some would say the laws we already have in place to do this are too harsh.
Exhibits:
Number one
Number two
Number three
Number four

~z

(Also, wearing a t-shirt from H2K)

Kook-maintained web-sites don't require a tone of overhead last I checked

Actually, I've heard that kook-maintained web-sites generally enjoy a 2600Hz tone overhead. Though rhythmic bass tones can also be nice.

2600.com

This is, quite, frankly, an excellent comment. As I read the op-ed piece, I was struck by the tone of indignation on the part of the author.

It is always amazing to me how willing most people are to look the other way when other's rights are trampled, and yet how indignant they can become when the same trampling occurs to them.

Where has the judiciary been as free speech has been repeatedly trampled on over the past years? I certainly hope that none of these employees of the judiciary have been viewing DVD's on unapproved platforms, decoding Adobe files, or (heavens forbid!) reading anything at all on 2600!

Since 2600.com is being sued over linking to DeCSS, this tactic is not unexpected. After a few appeals court rules against this sort of non-snese, things may settle down.

Straight from 2600: "SKLYAROV RELEASED ON BAIL AFTER THREE WEEKS"

So the little scenario you pointed out is not happening, at least not right now.

And even if Dmitri is unhappy about being a pawn, well, Adobe made the choice for him. Now he has no choice. Adobe, meanwhile, tries to play both sides off the middle by going, "ohh, sorry, we really didn't mean it." I swear they put out ROT13 just because they wanted to arrest someone and prove that the DMCA makes life for corporate america safe.

Out of the three cases mentioned, the one one that made me the most upset, and is still the one that makes my blood boil the most, was the DeCSS travesty.

I'm talking, particularly, about the case with 2600. I'm not a big backer of 2600 or Emmanuel but in this case I had to give the respect where it was deserved. This was the case, IMHO, that set the tone for all cases after it and because 2600.com made the hearing available on their site I, we, were given a first hand listen to just how badly lawyers could manipulate judges in technology cases.

After listening to this case, at least the whole of 2600 / Emmanuel's side, and finally finding out the judgement, I knew that it was only going to get worse was only going to get worse (I suggest doing a search here for 'Court' it's truly appalling). It wasn't as though the judgement and the judgement alone upset me. It wasn't that I was all "rah-rah" for 2600. It wasn't even that I thought DeCSS should be "legal." It's that the judge had no concept of technology and the justice system allowed a mac truck of a manipulative lawyer to run him over. Listen to the testimony.

I said it before and I will continue to say it, the judicial system needs better qualified people presiding in these cases. I say 'these' because, and IANAL but, this is an entirely different concept than, say, laws of the physical world and laws of the 'cyber one.' I've often thought and giggled about the idea that files are never stolen, because if you copy something it's still there. I truly feal that we need judges that know the facts of the technology before it's sppon fed to them by the attorney's on both sides.

Until that happens, and / or until the hearings on Dmitry, Napster, etc. are made public (if they have been could someone please link them) so we can know for sure if proper and fair judgements were passed.

Without that, and without the DMCA being either a) abolished, or b) re-written (I'd much prefer the latter) the companies that own the DMCA will continue to 0wn anyone they want.

That's my two cents. Mod it to hell.

This creates a false sense of attribution. This is what Ford claimed in it's case against 2600.

This also relates to the framing cases.

People have already been put in jail for screwdriver possession.

Jeez. It's funny when Slashdotters complain about the editors being a week behind, when the ACs can't even keep up with five-years-old news. ;)

Actually, with the tara plugin, you can play Real files with Winamp. And if you can play them, you know what that means, don't you? Yes! That means you can write out the .wav! I used that frequently when 2600 still hadn't converted their Off the Hook Real Audio shows to .mp3. Very handy. It needs the Real codec installed, of course, but it doesn't use its interface. Just a nice, boring one.


kickin' science like no one else can,
my dick is twice as long as my attention span.

http://www.2600.com/secret/sj/sj-cyberlaw.html

or Google for 911 Steven Jackson Games Bellsouth.

I Do encourage people to listen to talk radio a lot more and get a firmer grasp of what is going on the world today. :-)

I know this post came a little late, but here it is anyways. for the complete story on the SJGames Vs. Secret Service saga, check out this link:

http://www.2600.com/secret/sj.html

Except that the appeals for the 2600 case have yet to be decided. And it looks like there is plenty of far more serious stuff upon which to base the 2600 appeal-- like the constitutionality of the way the law was interpreted.

Hm. Maybe now they'll have to use the same standard when examining Judge Kaplan's behavior during the 2600 DeCSS case?

---

No, 2600 still owns FuckGeneralMotors.com and FordReallySucks.com. So, this might give them a leg up on the FordReallySucks.com site, but who knows about FuckGeneralMotors.com.

Ford sued 2600 for redirecting visitors of FuckGeneralMotors.com to Ford.com. Apparently visitors to the site might think that Ford is trying to harm GM. Ford's customers are stupid, I guess. They even have the transcript available on their website. However, the case is still pending.

According to Emanual Goldstein (aka Cereal Killer ;-) ), that the judge denied Ford an injunction on 2600's use of the domain is a good thing. They apparently don't want to be too heavy-handed.

Oh, and if you're feeling generous, you can donate from their online store. So far (11:45PM EST 19/06/01), donations have taken care of 23% of the fees.




kickin' science like no one else can,
my dick is twice as long as my attention span.

No, 2600 still owns FuckGeneralMotors.com and FordReallySucks.com. So, this might give them a leg up on the FordReallySucks.com site, but who knows about FuckGeneralMotors.com.

Ford sued 2600 for redirecting visitors of FuckGeneralMotors.com to Ford.com. Apparently visitors to the site might think that Ford is trying to harm GM. Ford's customers are stupid, I guess. They even have the transcript available on their website. However, the case is still pending.

According to Emanual Goldstein (aka Cereal Killer ;-) ), that the judge denied Ford an injunction on 2600's use of the domain is a good thing. They apparently don't want to be too heavy-handed.

Oh, and if you're feeling generous, you can donate from their online store. So far (11:45PM EST 19/06/01), donations have taken care of 23% of the fees.




kickin' science like no one else can,
my dick is twice as long as my attention span.

2600 then redirected to Ford as a joke. Ford slapped them with a lawsuit without any warning.

www.2600.com fights injustice in the Electronic Fronteir and routinely seems to challenge rights to privacy.

Go buy a t-shirt...

-TK

Of late, the NYTimes online has stopped posting "clickable" links along with their stories (i.e. no href tags). They simply include the URL in the text (like this: www.nytimes.com). As a side effect of Smart Tags, we will undoubtedly have the browser converting such strings into active links, much like many email clients do nowadays. If the browser on the vast majority of the population's computer's does this, it becomes effectively impossible to post a link which requires a copy and paste to activate.

Now, this might well be regarded as a good thing by many; but it removes the loophole that 2600 exploited to get around Judge Kaplan's ruling. Similarly, I'm sure the NYT does the "non-linking" only to protect their legal backside, not to annoy.

Here's hoping that if Smart Tags come to pass, we won't have some judge ruling that the 2600 page is now in violation of the law.

If you don't think that Felten set up the RIAA, go to his web page, check out his smirking picture, and follow the link that says "Freedom of Speech". He links to the page at RIAA.com that talks about music and freedom of expression. He's a total smartass.

And this lawsuit is pretty much the kind of thing a smartass would dream up. He reminds me of the kid who grew up sitting in the front of class with his hand in the air all the time, trying to outsmart the teacher. It's not about who's right, it's all about attention.

The RIAA has been very clear in communicating to everyone that they have no intention to sue Professor Felten.

The Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation (SDMI) does not - nor did it ever - intend to bring any legal action against Professor Felten or his co-authors.

So why is this case happening? Because Felten is suing the Attorney General of the United States! He is suing the plaintiffs using a legal construct known as a "Declaratory Judgment suit", which basically allows you to sue someone first so they can't sue you. Since the RIAA has already stated in public that they have no intention of suing Felten, it's pretty obvious to everyone that he is just picking a fight. Which, considering the people who are risking their entire professional careers to decide a real DMCA issue, paints a very accurate picture of Felten: still the annoying kid trying to get attention. If he ever got in a real fight, with real risks, like Eric Corley has - he'd run.

Don't let Felten distract you from the real DMCA issue. Newspaper headlines translate directly into departmental funding at major universities. This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about grant money.

From Verizon Attacks Critical Domain Names:

We [2600 et al] decided it would be a good idea to register verizonsucks.com because, if our experience with past phone companies is any indication, Verizon will in all probability be thought of in this way in the near future. But we didn't move fast enough. Apparently, Verizon realized this was going to happen and they went and had their lawyers register verizonsucks.com themselves! (The logic of owning a site that says your business sucks really escapes us.)

We did the next best thing and registered verizonREALLYsucks.com. We kept the domain in reserve for when we might need it. That day has come.

Also see: Verizon backs down from lawsuit threat

pherris

From Verizon Attacks Critical Domain Names:

We [2600 et al] decided it would be a good idea to register verizonsucks.com because, if our experience with past phone companies is any indication, Verizon will in all probability be thought of in this way in the near future. But we didn't move fast enough. Apparently, Verizon realized this was going to happen and they went and had their lawyers register verizonsucks.com themselves! (The logic of owning a site that says your business sucks really escapes us.)

We did the next best thing and registered verizonREALLYsucks.com. We kept the domain in reserve for when we might need it. That day has come.

Also see: Verizon backs down from lawsuit threat

pherris

He said "It's over and we presented our case well." The arguments are over, and he's awaiting a desicion. Some documents and other info will be at the website soon.

The motion picture industry picked 2600, not the other way around.

2600 is for the right to publish. For the right to publish cryptography and security news, and for the right to publish jokes and link on the internet.

You'll notice that fuckgeneralmotors isn't pointed at an anti-general motors site, it's just making a joke. 2600 owns several fuck*.com domain names, and, well, just read his declaration

I repeat, Eric's just doing what he has a right to do, and these companies are filing frivolous and abusive lawsuits against him. Tell me again that it's bull that big companies are evil.

If GM were the ones suing then speech aspects like this would certainly be involved; however its Ford suing, on the really quite reasonable grounds that to the average person the site would appear to be owned by them, and therefore imply that Ford had that opinion of their competitors.

I think this is a valid concern. I'm wondering if Ford even tried to voice this concern to Corley and ask him to cease the redirect.

Hmm, a quick check to 2600.com gets the answer.

"Had Ford come to us and asked us not to point to them, in all likelihood we would have pointed it someplace else out of courtesy. But when demands and accusations are made without any attempt at communication, we have to object."

More from the 2600 site :

In addition, Ford has always had the ability to simply block any requests that are forwarded from www.fuckgeneralmotors.com. This is a fact they certainly don't want known, since it would show how they are clearly wasting resources with this frivolous suit and attempting to establish a precedent that would forever affect the net community in a very bad way.

2600 has their guesses as to where ford's motives are...

Funnily enough, 2600 had their domain name hacked at NSI. I have lost the story url but it seems that over the past year persons unknown have hacked into NSI system and removed 2600.com from the database. It was then registered by another company.
You can check their version of the story out at 2600.com. They don't mention the fact that it was hijacked, but then, if you were a hacker group and had your domain name hacked, would you let the world know. I submitted the story, but it was rejected (as usual).

They knew my friend and I had been using them heavily, so we were blamed for their failure.

This whole story sounds like someone is trying to be exonerated in the court of public opinion, good thinking, you stupid little criminal.

If in fact you had exposed the evil principals charade, by uncovering the secret logs (what a crock!) why did your parents stand by and let you take the 120 hours of community service? Your parents seemed sufficiently outraged. Bullshit!

You know what you ought to do? Send a letter to 2600 magazine detailing just why it is that we should feel sorry for you, or better yet, send it to Phrack magazine. I'm sure there'll be a shoulder you can cry on there, girly-boy.

We took shit for years from teachers

Cry me a fucking river. If you weren't stupid, and hadn't got caught, you wouldn't have had to take shit from nobody. But I guess that's to be expected from a Mac luser.

They did say that. Read the briefs.

There is no court reporter official transcript for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. (Really! Try calling them up and trying to get a transcript. You can't do it. You can only get an audio recording. As it says on the page, this is an unofficial transcript made by an EFF volunteer, OCR'd in by cryptome. So, there was a mistake in the volunteer transcription or the OCR. People are providing a free service, give them a little leeway!
--
// mlc, user 16290

Here. Listen, and you can hear that at least one of the judges was most definitely not impressed with the arguments - specifically, that DeCSS is required for fair use, and that code is free speach.

~~~

This has really started to piss me off. In the NYTimes Cyberlaw article, Kaplan (no relation, I assume) mostly does a decent job of covering the basic facts and issues, and is surprisingly evenhanded in most respects, eschewing the blatant MPAA/RIAA toadying we've seen in other mainstream coverage of this case. (As a defense witness, I was one of the bit-part players in the original trial; I testified in front of Kaplan regarding networking technology to refute some of Shameless^WShamos's bullshit. The coverage at the time almost uniformly painted the defense as Evil HaXor D00dz; it was really exasperating trying to explain to my family why I was helping them.)

The NYtimes article, quoting some pozzer of a professor at U. of Richmond, says in part:
"You don't have a fair use right to view an HBO televised fight and make a copy of it[...]Similarly, a movie theater can restrict access by charging admission -- even charging a movie critic"
This is such an obvious bait-and-switch it makes my stomach churn that the reporter didn't call him on it! A movie showing in a theater is not "published". You haven't bought a copy of it, you've bought a ticket to go and see it. Copyright law doesn't apply! An HBO televised fight is technically the same thing -- you're paying HBO "admission" to see it, although in this case it's a little murky because they are transmitting a copy to your TV. But neither of these are analogous to something like a DVD, where you've purchased a copy of the work fixed in a tangible medium!

Grrr...

.. Regardless of the merits of a courtday protest, if you want to be there, you should go at 10:00 am, not on your lunch break. Unlike the court dates before, this one consists of a 20 minute argument from the 2600 side, and a 30 minute argument from the other side - It'll be over quick.

The 'other side' gets more time because there are two of them - MPAA gets 20 minutes, US government gets 10 minutes.

This info comes from the 2600 radio show Off the Hook.

Hrm, threats against the conference organizers? Isn't that analogous to free speech suppression? Like suing the newspaper for printing someones editorial?

Oh yeah, forgot, already happened against 2600. *sigh*

Like Virgin or the BBC Radio 1 2 3 or 4

The only US station worth listening to IMO is WBAI for OTH a 2600 broadcast.

Mitnick's pals at 2600 produced Freedom Downtime. It's playing at film festivals now...

I used to listen to Emmanual Goldstein's radio show Off the Hook on WBAI in NYC when I lived there. Anyone with a RealAudio player can catch it Tuesday nights at 8pm EST5EDT (Wed morning @ 00:00 UTC). People should give it a listen. These guys are not the deamons the media makes them into. Eric/Emmanual's courage to speak the truth: that being curious about technology is not a crime, and generally speaking out against tyrrany has been a personal inspiration to me in my life...

Mitnick's pals at 2600 produced Freedom Downtime. It's playing at film festivals now...

I used to listen to Emmanual Goldstein's radio show Off the Hook on WBAI in NYC when I lived there. Anyone with a RealAudio player can catch it Tuesday nights at 8pm EST5EDT (Wed morning @ 00:00 UTC). People should give it a listen. These guys are not the deamons the media makes them into. Eric/Emmanual's courage to speak the truth: that being curious about technology is not a crime, and generally speaking out against tyrrany has been a personal inspiration to me in my life...