Slashdot Mirror

Some instructions on what to do if you are stopped by the police and a handy card to carry in your wallet.

Why not write to their boss, President William Jefferson Clinton, the Chief Executive of the Executive branch of the United States Federal Government (as FBI -> DOJ -> Exec Branch)? I'm sure you'll find that he's a reasonable freedom-loving American who cares deeply about the thoughts, feelings, and basic rights of all Americans (especially those hackers too stupid to stay away cracked sites before an official investigation begins). If he's not too busy renting out rooms or training interns, perhaps he could filter your complaint down to the appropriate supervisorial personnel in the FBI. I know that when I've written to him to express some point of dissatisfaction with the job the Federal Government is doing that he wrote back promptly, with an in-depth explanation of why he thought he was doing everything he possibly could to ignore the obvious solution to the issue at hand. I couldn't have been more pleased, and I think you'll have a similarly good experience!

Or, you could donate money to a group like the ACLU, who spend their time and efforts working in the legal system to address concerns about the erosion of our rights (with the possible exception of the rights that may be granted by Amendment Number Two to the Constitution- but that's got it's own watchdog group). And while the ACLU has a poor reputation because they defend the freedom of people not many other people like, they also do a lot of hard work on cases that just need to be fought (like this one, where a girl was suspended from school for casting a spell on a teacher). They do a lot of work surrounding search and seizure. Especially since some police departments apparently manage to gain considerable revenue by auctioning seized goods.

Damn right the constitution only applies to the government. The government is the only entity that needs constitutional limits, because the government is the only entity that has an inherent right to deprive other entities of their rights in the name of preserving the rights of others. If OmniMegaCorp (tm) could arrest me and throw me in jail, then they'd need to have constitutional restrictions requiring them to give me a fair trial. But they can't.

It's a mystery. What is it about the so-called "philosophy" of Ayn Rand and Co. that so bedazzles its votaries? How does this silly, airy stuff induce so many intelligent people so blithely to ignore the facts of the world, even when they thrust themselves under their very noses? "But they can't."? They can and did; OmniMegaCorp, or rather @Home, has granted itself the right to functionally abridge Wesley's right to free speech.

While being summarily muzzled by an overpoweringly powerful corporation is not as painful an experience as, say, being thrown in jail, or being beaten to death over a labor dispute by the Ford Motor Company's armed security guards (1932) nonetheless it is a naked violation of one's right to free speech. Yet you assert that the First Amendment only weighs against the government, and does not affect the bully-censors of that odious @Home company. If only the Federal Government is restrained by the First Amendment, then U.S. citizens's vaunted free-speech right is a hollow one indeed.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

Damn right the constitution only applies to the government. The government is the only entity that needs constitutional limits, because the government is the only entity that has an inherent right to deprive other entities of their rights in the name of preserving the rights of others. If OmniMegaCorp (tm) could arrest me and throw me in jail, then they'd need to have constitutional restrictions requiring them to give me a fair trial. But they can't.

It's a mystery. What is it about the so-called "philosophy" of Ayn Rand and Co. that so bedazzles its votaries? How does this silly, airy stuff induce so many intelligent people so blithely to ignore the facts of the world, even when they thrust themselves under their very noses? "But they can't."? They can and did; OmniMegaCorp, or rather @Home, has granted itself the right to functionally abridge Wesley's right to free speech.

While being summarily muzzled by an overpoweringly powerful corporation is not as painful an experience as, say, being thrown in jail, or being beaten to death over a labor dispute by the Ford Motor Company's armed security guards (1932) nonetheless it is a naked violation of one's right to free speech. Yet you assert that the First Amendment only weighs against the government, and does not affect the bully-censors of that odious @Home company. If only the Federal Government is restrained by the First Amendment, then U.S. citizens's vaunted free-speech right is a hollow one indeed.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

Damn right the constitution only applies to the government. The government is the only entity that needs constitutional limits, because the government is the only entity that has an inherent right to deprive other entities of their rights in the name of preserving the rights of others. If OmniMegaCorp (tm) could arrest me and throw me in jail, then they'd need to have constitutional restrictions requiring them to give me a fair trial. But they can't.

It's a mystery. What is it about the so-called "philosophy" of Ayn Rand and Co. that so bedazzles its votaries? How does this silly, airy stuff induce so many intelligent people so blithely to ignore the facts of the world, even when they thrust themselves under their very noses? "But they can't."? They can and did; OmniMegaCorp, or rather @Home, has granted itself the right to functionally abridge Wesley's right to free speech.

While being summarily muzzled by an overpoweringly powerful corporation is not as painful an experience as, say, being thrown in jail, or being beaten to death over a labor dispute by the Ford Motor Company's armed security guards (1932) nonetheless it is a naked violation of one's right to free speech. Yet you assert that the First Amendment only weighs against the government, and does not affect the bully-censors of that odious @Home company. If only the Federal Government is restrained by the First Amendment, then U.S. citizens's vaunted free-speech right is a hollow one indeed.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

It's been said before, but:

Vote Libertarian.

Support the EFF.

Support the ACLU.

Use encryption (someone post me a Linux link).

Call your representative.

Don't just sit there, do something. Put the right people in power and this crap will get fixed.

Hold it!

These filters do NOT only block porn and sex chat, nor do they only block "hate speech" (the blocking of which alone is fairly contrary to the spirit of the first ammendment). These filters block much of ANY political speech, especially anything that deviates from the norm (not to mention that many have a right-wing slant, but that's not as universal) and articles that are critical of the filter itself.

Plus, sexual education material on the net, which the Supreme court ruled minors have the right to access in the hopes that such information could help stop teen pregnancy and STDs, is always blocked. These sites often have graphic images that even the most advanced filters can't distinguish from porn, but are vital to self-diagnosis.

For more reading on why NOT to filter, read Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? . It's quite informative and brings up many issues that need to be addressed.

-benc

As president, how would you protect our rights as citizens to personal privacy, whether it be internet-related, or not? For example, on the most extreme end, how do you feel about suggestions regarding requiring DNA samples from anyone who is arrested for any reason (advocated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police) to taking DNA samples from all newborns (an idea floated by New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani).

On a seemingly less intrusive note, also related to personal privacy are new proposed Federal Communication Commission rules which seem to be designed to empower the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the SEC's plan to create an internet snoop system to "monitor fraud"? And finally, what is your opinion of Echelon?

As president, how would you protect our rights as citizens to personal privacy, whether it be internet-related, or not? For example, on the most extreme end, how do you feel about suggestions regarding requiring DNA samples from anyone who is arrested for any reason (advocated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police) to taking DNA samples from all newborns (an idea floated by New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani).

On a seemingly less intrusive note, also related to personal privacy are new proposed Federal Communication Commission rules which seem to be designed to empower the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the SEC's plan to create an internet snoop system to "monitor fraud"? And finally, what is your opinion of Echelon?

As president, how would you protect our rights as citizens to personal privacy, whether it be internet-related, or not? For example, on the most extreme end, how do you feel about suggestions regarding requiring DNA samples from anyone who is arrested for any reason (advocated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police) to taking DNA samples from all newborns (an idea floated by New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani).

On a seemingly less intrusive note, also related to personal privacy are new proposed Federal Communication Commission rules which seem to be designed to empower the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the SEC's plan to create an internet snoop system to "monitor fraud"? And finally, what is your opinion of Echelon?

The values of the VOTERS in the city especially. If the mayor and the city council put into place a ban on homosexual relationships in San Francisco for instance, they'd probably be ousted come the next election. If you disagree with the community values implemented by your local government, you need to exercise your vote. If the majority of people agree with you then the people that put the values into place will be gone and they can be changed along with the laws. If not, then you are SOL and simply need to deal with it.

There is such a thing as tyranny of the majority; just because voters have the power to e.g. segregate the schools does not mean that we are incorrect in unequivocally stating that this wrong. Might is not right, and criticism of injustice -- even when perpetrated through legal means -- is essential to any society. We must not accept what seems to be your implication, viz. that because a majority supports it, it is just. A majority can be as unjust as a dictator, and should not be exempt from criticism merely by virtue of being a majority.

__

1. Certain drugs can cause immediate mental breakdown, and cause a danger to others. There is a case to made that certain drugs should be illegal.

1. Well, first of all, that's not at the state or federal level, as I specified.

Tomorrow the US Supreme court is going to consider weither or not the 4th amendment is something worth paying attention to.

http://www.aclu.org/court/7th_brief.htm

If they find for Indianapolis, I expect a looong drive into work the next morning. Maybe it's time to find a part of the country where I still have rights and can walk downtown without having to worry about being assaulted by a cop..

-----------

How about giving your friends memberships in organizations that promote worthy ideals? Some good examples are the ACLU and EFF (as mentioned above). The money that you spend on a gift like this benefits everyone, by helping in the fight to hold onto the precious little freedom we have left. This is great for every budget, most organizations have memberships in the $20 - $30 range, putting them squarely in the "Less than playstation2" category, but I am sure any organization would gladly accept a $1,000,000+ donation (from the "unlimited" range).

Plus there is some geek prestige to be had by pulling an EFF membership card out of your wallet.

If you want to do something that is actually worthwhile (and c'mon, a contest run by geeks for geeks is not it), take some of the examples, as well as some completely legitimate sites that were not meant to trip any filters, and list about 25 of them on a flyer. Then find 25 sites that are completely innappropriate for anyone* to view, and are *NOT* blocked, and list those.

Okay, everyone go pick one brand of filtering S/W and do this. Print a paragraph explaining that this instituition uses brand-X filter, include a breif synopsis of what to expect on a few of the sites, and either tape it up next to the computers or hand it out outside the library. This is something those of you doing the goatsex redirects would absolutely love, find a URL for it that hasn't been blocked and encourage people to leave their terminal on that when they leave (Okay, maybe that won't help the cause, but make sure they understand what hello.jpg is and that it's only a click or two away.)

Write another paragraph encouraging people to ask their librarian who to complain to about getting said censorware removed, and provide email addresses to the customer service contacts for the censorware companies.

*That* would be worthwhile. In fact, Rob, since you enjoy the embarassment and ridicule of censorware companies, why not host a project that has printable postscript of such files? It seems like a much more effective way to get word out to the people than having cphack.exe source code posted all over your stories like a couple of months ago. Or if someone wants to start a sourceforge page for such a project, please submit it as a story.

*Hey I said it was innapropriate, noone to blame but yourself if you click without reading...

Fist Prost

"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."

Bah, this isn't an "embarrasing hole" [sic], but rather, a little known feature of Adobe Acrobat, widely known as a "fsckwit alert feature".

I'm not sure why the above post was moderated up... it's both obvious and redundant to question the objective nature of the handpicked reviewers.

This instance beautifully illustrates exactly why the government cannot be trusted to monitor our communications, police itself, or store and protect the information of private individuals.

Damnit, it sounds so fscking trite, but our rights must be fought for! Do something about it besides muttering inside a cubicle and posting on Slashdot - support the EFF, support the ACLU. And don't just support them with your voice - cough up just a little bit of that new hardware fund, or spend some time as a volunteer.

It's in the nature of a governmental organism to constantly expand bureaucracy and enlarge the scope and scale of the powers it possesses. The cold hard truth is that the people reading this bear the responsibility to ensure their own freedom.

If you don't help do it, it won't get done.

JDaemon

Put congressional voting records online

Did your congressperson vote for campaign finance reform? (Mine voted against it) Some organizations such as the ACLU and Common Cause keep track of a few issues, but normally I must learn the voting record from the candidates themselves before election. That forces me to parse their lies: "During my term, I increased funding for libraries and fought smut on the internet" translates to "I loaned libraries $100 and forced them to install useless $200 filters on their internet machines". If a few more people can go to the source and verify the politician's claims, then the politician won't have a free license to conveniently spin his story for re-election. A database that's searchable by topic would promote integrity in campaign literature and advertising.

Turn off the TV

What did Bush and Gore do with over $100,000,000 of campign money? 30 second commercials with thinly-veiled half-truths that should disgust any critical thinker. Television ads are the major reason why campaigns are so outrageously expensive. If you want third parties to introduce real issues into politics, then don't watch ads. Turn off the TV. That will even the chances for candidates with less money and more ideas. Then the greater influence will be the word-of-mouth from people who have researched the issues, not from a sensationalist appeal to undecided TV watchers.

Vote for a third party

Democrats insist that they are the only way to prevent Republicans from restricting abortion rights. Republicans keep right-wingers in the party by threatening: "if the Democrats gain power, they'll take away your guns." They've made those threats during every election for the past two decades. Don't let fear of the worst party prevent you from voting for the best. Don't worry about the magic of how new supreme court appointees will vote. Supreme Court members have suprised their nominators by voting fairly on the issues, not like the presidents intended. Don't let the Dems/Reps conspire to shut out third parties by restricting debates, by keeping campaign costs high, and by other means (for example, after Nader announced a rally in Flint, MI, then Clinton flew in for a seperate rally at the same time one block away). Vote your ideas!

I never lipped off, and I never got arrested. At the time that the law was passed, I was just over the required age. But I didn't have a driver's license or any sort of identification, meaning that I had no way of proving my age. I knew most every cop in downtown Charlottesville by their first name. I am always extremely polite and friendly with police offers. It was the officers that I didn't know that were the problem, the ones that thought that I might be young enough to be arrested. (In fact, that was the basis for my involvement in the ACLU lawsuit.)

The fourth amendment shows that we don't need to provide ID in order to pass freely through the streets of America. Suddenly, I needed one. My parents have no money. I was not defending myself. I was defending freedom in Charlottesville, and that's no exaggeration. You've got some nerve to state that I'm "pretending to be a defender of the Constitution." My motives are exactly as I've stated, nothing more and nothing less. To say that I abused the courts is bizarre. The ACLU backed the case, and I've seldom seen them abuse the courts. Defending the extremely basic right of the freedom to assemble is hardly irresponsible.

If youth curfews aren't offensive to you, what are? How about black curfews? You know, since, statistically, the majority of violent crimes in Charlottesville are committed by African-Americans. Or is that OK too? How about curfews for the elderly -- you know, to protect them from nighttime crime? Or curfews for programmers. Because what need do they have to be outside so late? They should be at the office, or sleeping at home. Or, hell, a curfew for everybody from, say, 1am - 5am. Who needs to be outside then? There's really no good reason, right?

The line has to be drawn somewhere. I draw it at youth curfews.

-Waldo

-------------------

Here I am complaining about moderation. I don't know what's got into me, as the whole subject of /. moderation is beneath my dignity even to take into account.

But it so happens that the above comment, which is both interesting and insightful, not to mention intelligently and amusingly written, happens to be completely on-topic for the discussion at hand. It obviously has a connection to Mr. Knauss's commentary in Suck, which, I guess I should remind readers, is the subject of this particular slashdot article. If readers are too God damn lazy to read that Suck article, let me at least quote the pertinent part (for which flagrant violation of a dozen "intellectual property" rights belonging to various multinational corporations, I nevertheless hope I won't be sentenced to jail). Quoth Mr. Knauss:

...And there are plenty of beatings to come. Except for the under-funded Electronic Frontier Foundation, the embryonic efforts of the ACLU, and the occasional self-interested corporate lobbyist, the Internet's collective response to one well-nigh apocalyptic decision after another has unfortunately been the same as the Internet's collective response to just about everything: posts, lots and lots of posts. Discussions and cries of hypocrisy and malformed analogies have consumed megabyte upon megabyte of masturbatory rage and self-indulgent self-righteousness.

Which, of course, accomplishes exactly nothing . For all the endless caterwauling that each addle-headed legal decision generates, the impact extends only as far as the smallish communities that spawn it. Even ignoring the significant percentage of the population that remains stubbornly off-line -- including the vast majority of Congress and the judiciary -- the cage-rattlers have failed even to involve those who might actually care. Millions use the Internet without the slightest idea that their rights are being stripped away, blissfully unaware of what's going on because they don't happen to be members of the choir. The tempest not only fits in a teapot, it doesn't even rattle the lid. In this age of omnipresent email and mainstream technology news, pictures of ribbons don't cut it as tools of moral suasion anymore...

Italics mine. Now you with moderator points, reread the above post, the one that got moderated down to virtual invisibilty as "offtopic," and ask yourselves if it doesn't say something important about the nature of this chasing-your-own-tail "community" you inhabit "here" within slashdot.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

But it goes further than this. Recently in my area, a highway was blocked off and a "drug checkpoint" was set up. This resulted in hundreds of innocent people being stoped, their cars searched without cause. It lead to two possesion of marijuana arrests, and a few open container alcholol violations. I hope those arrested get good laywers, and the courts are willing to listen. Apperently the 4th amendment doesn't mean anything anymore in law enforcement.

And it used to be that law enforcement needed cause and a court order before they could proceed with a wiretap. Now we're going to have carnivore hooked up to the ISPs so the FBI can will have the ability to watch anybody anytime (not legally, but that doesn't seem to have stopped them in past similar situations). This sort of thing needs to stop (btw, you can click here to send a free fax to your congressmen and the president urging them to stop carnivore).

I applaud the gentleman who wrote this article, as he was willing to stand up for his rights even when he was doing nothing wrong. More people ought to refuse to be searched even when they have nothing to hide. If you get stopped for speeding and the cop wants to look around your car, say "plain view, officer". The idea that only the guilty have something to hide is wrong. Everyone has a right to privacy

---

At the organizational level, they're about as far from libertarian (either small-L or big-L) as you can get: a clique of holier-than-thou hypocrites who don't see any problem with defending certain civil liberties while attacking others. Unfortunately, it appears that relatively few of their members are aware of this.

I was actually interested in joining the ACLU awhile back -- there's a lot of overlap between what they claim to stand for and what I believe as a small-l libertarian. I'm not much into the protest scene, but some of the recent cases involving things like DeCSS, patent abuse, and Net censorship finally made me consider becoming more financially active in First Amendment causes. But then I ran across the following page on the ACLU's site:

http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

I'm not a gun freak (don't own any, and am not particularly interested in doing so at the moment), but that page changed my mind in a hurry about signing up. The donation I was planning to make to the ACLU went to the EFF instead.

Trading one civil liberty (the Second Amendment) for another (the First Amendment) strikes me as a really, really bad idea. What's downright offensive is that an organization with a name like "American Civil Liberties Union" is using members' funds to promote such an agenda, when most of their members probably aren't aware they're doing so.

As far as I can tell, the ACLU's main page doesn't even link to this position paper -- the only way you can find it is if someone tells you it's there. Certainly "Gun Control" is conspicuously absent from the list of "Issues" on their front page. I'd be curious to know how many card-carrying ACLU members would object to this brand of sophistry on the part of their organization... an organization they joined in the mistaken belief that they were standing up for all of their Constitutional rights.

Please spare me the "but the Second Amendment was written for the National Guard" spiel -- if that's what you believe, then perhaps the ACLU is the right organization for you, and I'd say by all means, get involved. This isn't intended as flamebait, just a heads-up to people who might be thinking about joining the ACLU without getting the full story behind their political positions. Don't shoot (no pun intended) the messenger. :)

So what's worse: schools rejecting science or schools rejecting the separation of church and state?

--

An offensive T-Shirt is illegal if it breaks decency laws. If it is decided that mere source code is illegal, then its propogation via T-shirt print is, sadly, as illegal. There's nothing special about T-Shirts, they're merely another medium.

First: Name a single "decency" law that has withstood Constitutional scrutiny, please. There was a case in the early 70's (I forget the case name) where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a biker who was thrown in jail for wearing a leather jacket with the word "FUCK" emblazoned in large letters across the back. (He was on trial for marijuana possession, wore it to court, and the judge was not amused.)

The Court takes free speech *very* seriously. There are a very, very limited set of circumstances wherein prior restraint will withstand Constitutional muster:

It must be a clear and present danger to national security.

It must "appeal solely to the prurient interest and hold no artistic, scientific, or educational value" [from memory], i.e. it must be obscene. This is a very difficult thing to prove.

"Fighting words" are also unprotcted. If you are black, and I walk up to you and say "you dumb nigger", and you promptly beat my ass, I will have very little protection under the law.

So if the T-Shirt can be viewed as a political statement, even if it takes a stretch of the imagination to do so, then it will very probably be considered speech by the courts.

The ACLU has a good briefing on this here.

Remember, the First Amendment is the higher law whenever it conflicts with copyrights. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; copyright laws are enacted by Congress. T-Shirts are special, and are viewed so by the courts, merely because they are an expression of speech.

PLEASE DO NOT VOTE FOR FEINSTEIN!!! Here is an entire website devoted to why you should not vote for her. She's anti-civil rights, anti-Internet, anti-just about everything. I'm not a republican but I'm definitely voting for Tom Campbell, who doesn't support the war on drugs and is pro-choice. Here is Tom Campbell's voting record, and the one on his web site.

The article, as well as other sources, confirm that the changes were made to the original anti free-speech bill, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act. As far as I know, the Bankrupcy Reform Bill remains evil. Note that it doesn't make drug-use information illegal, so sites on needle exchange and such would theoretically be okay, but manufacture is still on the death list.

- Michael Cohn

I'm in the Philadelphia area, and the Republican National Convention is in town (gak). I was wondering if there are any groups protesting issues such as the mentioned act which would prohibit information on drugs, as well as things like FBI's carnivore which are violating our rights. I know some guys from the ACLU were down there today, but I don't know what they were marching for offhand.

I'm unaware of anything simialr for the UK's RIP bill or New Zealand's current attempt to do something similar, however citizens of the US can, at the very least, speak out against carnivore by going to this page at the ACLU's website and faxing/emailing a premade letter to their congressmen.

Well, yeah, but the answer is: We're not telling you.

"As part of these investigations, the House Select Committee on Intelligence requested documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) regarding its operating standards for intelligence systems like ECHELON that may intercept communications of Americans. In a surprising move, NSA officials refused to disclose these documents by invoking the attorney-client privilege."

Source: http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/con gress.html

Perhaps this is in some way related to Echelon. Supposedly they track a very large percentage of all e-mails, phone calls etc. Maybe this is just another extension to it. Whatever the case, whether this is part of Carnivore or Echelon or just a useful utility for cataloguing and searching channels, it would serve us well to keep an eye out for potential misuse / invasion of our privacy.

The FBI can claim that their actions at various ISPs are part of ongoing investigations, so those ISPs that have seen the box may not be able to talk. But the design of the box is fair game for FOIA - whether they built it themselves or contracted it out. So the ACLU is doing a FOIA request to find out about the box, its design, what it can and can't do and what it does besides what it's authorized to do, etc.

The ACLU has a website where you can FAX your representative a prewritten letter to speak out against HR 2987.

The ACLU has it's take on this issue, along with an easy way to fax your representative with a customizeable form letter.


My mom is not a Karma whore!

The ACLU has it's take on this issue, along with an easy way to fax your representative with a customizeable form letter.


My mom is not a Karma whore!

The ACLU has it's take on this issue, along with an easy way to fax your representative with a customizeable form letter.


My mom is not a Karma whore!

It's at times like this I'm glad I joined the ACLU. It, and other similar groups, have consistently defended us against encroachments on the First Amendment like the CDA and COPA and others, with varied success. Somebody's got to fight the bad guys, eh? Other countries without any Bill of Rights, like Australia and England, have had even more serious problems with idiot lawmakers. Those of you who read NTK now will remember news about the law in Britain which required people to prove that they did not possess a cryptographic key, and the many prudish laws passed by the Australian government are famous. Us 'Murricans still have to be on our guard, however. We, too, have moron lawmakers, and we can't always count on the conservative Supreme Court to protect us. Also, if Dubya gets elected, the precarious political balance on the Court will slip even farther to the right, and we can expect more unfavorable rulings.

It's not like splicing is anything new - hell we've been making corn that poisons butterflys for a while now - it's not new. Why is this news? What is the nature of the chromosome, is that what makes it so special? What does it do? Anything?

I've got one of those Intellimouse Explorers (the huge silver ones with the superfluous tail light and like three extra buttons; well, what the hell, here's a http://www.microsoft.com/Mouse/explorer.htm link) and sites that won't let you back out are an incredible annoyance. See, two of the buttons on there serve as Forward/Back (respectively) while browsing the web, and after about 20 minutes of using them, I was hooked. You wouldn't believe how simple (and remarkably intuitive) to navigate with your thumb. Now if I could just find a good use for those buttons in Half-Life... I mean, sure, it's easy enough to hold down the back button and select the page before the offending site, but that would require moving my cursor over six or so linear inches of desktop space. Isn't that just a little bit unreasonable? No? Ah well.

But it's not in their best interests to protect the Constitution, since their constituencies aren't providing them half as much cash as corporate sponsors and PACs. Katz might rail about corporatism and its effect on society, but the more concerning thing (to me, at least) is how you get popular control of government back from corporate/conglomerate interests. The problem in trying is that any candidate who doesn't pander to big money isn't gonna get the media exposure and other such rot (which costs oh-so-much) that it takes to win elections in the States.

I think you're going to find a common theme here - people with a clue are going beat themselves senseless trying to get the unwashed masses (hell, even coworkers and friends) to believe civil liberties online is as important as it is. Even r/t civiil liberties aren't a big concern among most people - just ask the average guy what he thinks of the ACLU, particularly when they're defending the rights of someone unpopular.

Bother me? No, outside the US, we only have to worry about Echelon.

Check out this link on the ACLU website. The riders that are attached to this legislation are going to increase the police powers of the goverment, effectively giving them the ability to shut down websites that they consider 'dangerous', and do computer search and seizures without notification. Its scary. And it already passed the Senate unanimously. I wrote my represenatative in Congress, and he fed me back some pap about how the Act was good, I was just misunderstanding it. I think the language is pretty clear on this one.

But it's also disturbing that the general attitude seen here seems rather resigned, as if what goes on in Washington is completely and entirely detached from our influence.

Contrary to popular belief, we still live in a democracy, albeit a crumbling one with a widening gap between lawmakers & interpreters and regular Joes. I suggest anyone disturbed by the closeness of this decision take a look at joining an organization such as the EFF or the ACLU.

Government is still easier to control than weather (though not by much).

With the recent merger of VA systems and Andover.net, Slashdot has gained an unreasonable degree of dominance over the web discussion market, claimed the Justice Department Wednesday. Negotiations are continuing between Andover lawyers and government officials, but a current plan would break Slashdot up into a number of competing operations, each in charge of one of its flagship products:

Slash: News for nerds
Dot: Stuff that matters
org: Hot Grits

A press release from CmdrTaco claims that they are cooperating with the Justice Department, but do not feel that criticism of their business as monopolistic is warranted. As competition in each of their major areas, Taco cited Kuro5hin, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the work of Jesustussinheadface.

you pick the topic you agree with, optionally customize the form letter, type in some address info, and they figure out who to fax it to and do the rest. this is my current favorite form of activism.

• don't like ECHELON?
• think filtering software legislation sucks?
• opposed to secret computer searches, or censoring certain types of information from the 'Net?

you pick the topic you agree with, optionally customize the form letter, type in some address info, and they figure out who to fax it to and do the rest. this is my current favorite form of activism.

• don't like ECHELON?
• think filtering software legislation sucks?
• opposed to secret computer searches, or censoring certain types of information from the 'Net?

you pick the topic you agree with, optionally customize the form letter, type in some address info, and they figure out who to fax it to and do the rest. this is my current favorite form of activism.

• don't like ECHELON?
• think filtering software legislation sucks?
• opposed to secret computer searches, or censoring certain types of information from the 'Net?

you pick the topic you agree with, optionally customize the form letter, type in some address info, and they figure out who to fax it to and do the rest. this is my current favorite form of activism.

• don't like ECHELON?
• think filtering software legislation sucks?
• opposed to secret computer searches, or censoring certain types of information from the 'Net?

you pick the topic you agree with, optionally customize the form letter, type in some address info, and they figure out who to fax it to and do the rest. this is my current favorite form of activism.

• don't like ECHELON?
• think filtering software legislation sucks?
• opposed to secret computer searches, or censoring certain types of information from the 'Net?

1) This is not 'one of the few cases'! As far as straight (civil) libel goes, existing 'cyberlaw' goes back to the 80's, with mailing lists and BBSs and has definitely been upheld internationally. "international" is important, because you can be sued in jurisdiction where the 'damage' occurs or where the 'victim' resides. Here are some cases/sources:

• Here's a Richmond Law Review (Va.) article suggesting unified approaches to cyber-defamation.
• Here's a Harvard Law Review article on cyberlaw.
• Here's a Georgia State review article of Alabama cyber defamation law (for details and contrast with Utah)
• Blakeley v. Continental Airlines is a 1999 case involving a private company-only BBS
• Rindos v. Hardwick was a famous case where an American was successfully sued in Australian courts for defamation on a e-mail list. [Summary] [Judgement]
• A CyberLibel FAQ -- primarily non-US 'British tradition' (Australia, Canada) useful as a basis for further understanding.
• Here's a 1994 Australian review of Defamation laws in cyberspace.
• Here's a course reading list (with links to cases and other resources embedded in the course outline) for a comparison of in the US and Australia with references to other law (Roman, English, Dutch, etc.) It hits some very relevant points in vey few words.
• Here's a review of British cyber-defamation law (incl. BBS and e-mail)
• Similar US Criminal Libel cases against students have been reported widely in the media for years (names are not cited, because they are minors): [Colorado, 1997 (ACLU) and verdict, 1998]
• Nervous? maybe you should be Here's a (English language, published in Denmark) peer-reviewed law journal article on 'Defamation Havens' ('peer-review' is when articles are reviewed by experts before publication)

2) Do a websearch for "criminal libel" and you'll find that its primary use worldwide, historically and currently is against journalists . One of the 'Inciting Abuses' that contributed to the American Revolution was a (then British) court verdict that a newspaper was guilty of defaming the reputation of the Governer-General of New York by (accurately) revealing his corruption.

• Criminal Libel use.abuse is often cited in the annual US State Department Human Rights reports on each country. [Gabon, 1999]
• In Ireland, journalistic websites get away with a great deal that print journalism can't.

3) To address another of Katz's points, here are mini-case studies in dysfunctional human behaviour on the net

Katz was on my 'exclude list' for a few months, not because I dislike his writing, but because his loose use of facts and analogies leads to a sloppy, infuriating discussion. A profesional writer should investigate his facts and limit his speculation to what those facts support; If he doesn't, the readers will certainly go hogwild. This is the first Katz article I've read in a while. I am not pleased.

1) This is not 'one of the few cases'! As far as straight (civil) libel goes, existing 'cyberlaw' goes back to the 80's, with mailing lists and BBSs and has definitely been upheld internationally. "international" is important, because you can be sued in jurisdiction where the 'damage' occurs or where the 'victim' resides. Here are some cases/sources:

• Here's a Richmond Law Review (Va.) article suggesting unified approaches to cyber-defamation.
• Here's a Harvard Law Review article on cyberlaw.
• Here's a Georgia State review article of Alabama cyber defamation law (for details and contrast with Utah)
• Blakeley v. Continental Airlines is a 1999 case involving a private company-only BBS
• Rindos v. Hardwick was a famous case where an American was successfully sued in Australian courts for defamation on a e-mail list. [Summary] [Judgement]
• A CyberLibel FAQ -- primarily non-US 'British tradition' (Australia, Canada) useful as a basis for further understanding.
• Here's a 1994 Australian review of Defamation laws in cyberspace.
• Here's a course reading list (with links to cases and other resources embedded in the course outline) for a comparison of in the US and Australia with references to other law (Roman, English, Dutch, etc.) It hits some very relevant points in vey few words.
• Here's a review of British cyber-defamation law (incl. BBS and e-mail)
• Similar US Criminal Libel cases against students have been reported widely in the media for years (names are not cited, because they are minors): [Colorado, 1997 (ACLU) and verdict, 1998]
• Nervous? maybe you should be Here's a (English language, published in Denmark) peer-reviewed law journal article on 'Defamation Havens' ('peer-review' is when articles are reviewed by experts before publication)

2) Do a websearch for "criminal libel" and you'll find that its primary use worldwide, historically and currently is against journalists . One of the 'Inciting Abuses' that contributed to the American Revolution was a (then British) court verdict that a newspaper was guilty of defaming the reputation of the Governer-General of New York by (accurately) revealing his corruption.

• Criminal Libel use.abuse is often cited in the annual US State Department Human Rights reports on each country. [Gabon, 1999]
• In Ireland, journalistic websites get away with a great deal that print journalism can't.

3) To address another of Katz's points, here are mini-case studies in dysfunctional human behaviour on the net

Katz was on my 'exclude list' for a few months, not because I dislike his writing, but because his loose use of facts and analogies leads to a sloppy, infuriating discussion. A profesional writer should investigate his facts and limit his speculation to what those facts support; If he doesn't, the readers will certainly go hogwild. This is the first Katz article I've read in a while. I am not pleased.

Civil libel, maybe. But civil libel cases have to be brought by private parties. It's also a defense in libel cases that the libelled party was a "public figure", which includes government officials generally and probably includes a school principal.

The kid may have a good case for false arrest.