Slashdot Mirror

Albanach writes "ZDNet is reporting that a report from independent auditors and experts has recommended that the State of California adopts open source software and Voice over IP as part of a series of moves that, the report says, could save the state $32 billion over five years. Additionally, they recommend the State establishes a centralised technology division to handle all their IT needs reducing redundancy and generating further savings."

catfoo writes "California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has recently posted the California Performance Review Report, a 2,500 page plan to overhaul state government and save $32 billion over the next five years. Part of the proposal: Open Source alternatives. Imagine that..."

catfoo writes "California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has recently posted the California Performance Review Report, a 2,500 page plan to overhaul state government and save $32 billion over the next five years. Part of the proposal: Open Source alternatives. Imagine that..."

Rydia writes "In light of the California Legislature's amendment and consideration of AB 1792, regarding violent video games, Findlaw's Vikram Amar (UC-Hastings) and Alan Brownstein (UC-Davis) have written an editorial on a child's vs. an adult's protections under the first amendment, and the right of the state to introduce legislation in this vein. It is welcome to see the topic discussed on its own legal merits, in lieu of actual law, and not the moralistic turf both sides of the debate have attempted to claim as their own."

Etcetera writes "The CA Secretary of State has just announced that they're pulling the plug on the use of Diebold voting machines (thank you KNSD) as a result of the flaws that came up where they were used during March's elections. More background on the issue (not updated yet) from the Secretary of State's perspective is available here."

Etcetera writes "The CA Secretary of State has just announced that they're pulling the plug on the use of Diebold voting machines (thank you KNSD) as a result of the flaws that came up where they were used during March's elections. More background on the issue (not updated yet) from the Secretary of State's perspective is available here."

Thanks to Reuters/Yahoo for its article discussing the failure to progress of two California violent videogame bills, since they "failed to clear a committee of California's state Assembly, killing them for 2004 unless the committee changes its mind." However, "One bill, which would expand the definition of 'harmful matter to children' to include certain types of violent games, received a favorable 5-1 vote, while the second, regulating how some games are displayed in stores, got a 3-1 vote" - but "both needed 7 votes in favor to be approved." Bill sponsor Leland Yee has released a statement claiming: "I am deeply disturbed that money ruled the day here in Sacramento... Rather than protecting our children and giving our parents a tool to help raise healthy kids, the multi-billion dollar entertainment industry was allowed to shoot down necessary legislation."

cybermox writes "There are two laws (AB1792 and AB1793) up for committee approval next week in the California State Assembly that seek to reclassify violent video games in a manner similar to pornography (1792) and require retailers to display Mature rated games separately from other games (1793). The IGDA trade body has a document opposing the bill in its anti-censorship advocacy page." Update: 04/09 02:22 GMT by S : Reuters is also covering support for the bill among "elected officials, religious leaders and civic activists", who "rallied across California on Thursday" - we've previously covered the introduction of this proposed legislation.

cybermox writes "There are two laws (AB1792 and AB1793) up for committee approval next week in the California State Assembly that seek to reclassify violent video games in a manner similar to pornography (1792) and require retailers to display Mature rated games separately from other games (1793). The IGDA trade body has a document opposing the bill in its anti-censorship advocacy page." Update: 04/09 02:22 GMT by S : Reuters is also covering support for the bill among "elected officials, religious leaders and civic activists", who "rallied across California on Thursday" - we've previously covered the introduction of this proposed legislation.

Andrew Bunner writes "We asked the courts to rule on our appeal of the DeCSS preliminary injunction (even though the DVD CCA dropped the case) and... we won! No more preliminary injunction. Here's the official ruling (pdf)." This is the last gasp of this case, which we've been following for some years now. This ruling goes into some depth analyzing the trade secret claim, gets the ruling "right", and should be helpful in future cases on similar topics.

The Importance of writes "The California Court of Appeals decided an important cybercafe regulation case last week. Read the decision [PDF]. The court decided that cybercafes are deserving of First Amendment protection. and that the zoning regulations used to regulate them in the City of Garden Grove were unconstitutional. However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok. Read more on the decision here and here."

mbstone writes: "A California appellate court has upheld [PDF link], 2-1, a Garden Grove, California ordinance requiring so-called 'cyber cafes' to impose a curfew, hire security guards, and install video surveillance cameras capable of identifying patrons. The opinion is a must-read; the dissenting judge called the law 'Orwellian,' and pointed out that 'even the government of Malaysia' was 'too ashamed to enforce' a similar proposal." It appears that the ordinances were enacted in part due to crime involving "gang activity" and to curtail school-children from using the facilities during school hours (unless accompanied by a guardian).

bunnie writes "Can publicly funded government organizations defend and prosecute their namespace? According to the University of California, yes. A student run website used as a public forum and text book exchange, ironically named ucsduncensored.com, was shut down under Education Code Section 92000. A nastygram from the university reflects the hard-line that UCSD is taking on this subject. Perhaps the UC Regents should trim some bored administrators from their payroll to help address the California budget crunch..." "UCSD" is clearly not an abbreviation of "University of California", so what's the problem?

Schlemphfer writes "Spammers have likely received their biggest setback yet, when California governor Gray Davis today signed a bill outlawing all unsolicited email sent to and from the state. Two things about this new law stand out: first, it puts the burden on senders to prove that they are sending solicited email. Second, it bans the entire practice of spamming, with no loopholes at all like allowing messages with ADV: in the subject. Keep in mind California has the world's fifth largest economy, and they are planning to enforce the law with fines amounting to $1000 per each piece of spam. This law could be ruinous to spammers when it takes effect January 1st."

An anonymous reader submits: "California has become the first state in the nation to require companies victimized by malicious computer attacks to disclose what might have been compromised to their customers. Dubbed the Security Breach Information Act, companies whose systems are cracked and have credit card, bank account, and/or other significant customer data stolen are required to report the intrusion either by email, snail mail, a notice on their website, or by notification to the news media. Law takes effect Tuesday, July 1 (tomorrow)."

NearlyHeadless writes "The California Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings that ex-Intel employee Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi committed electronic trespass by sending e-mail to Intel employees, reports the San Jose Business Journal. E-mail has the same protection as other communication, according to the court's opinion, available here (PDF link)." We've covered Hamidi's case more than once in the past.

brainWaves asks "Recently I found out I have some Pervasive Developmental Disorders, especially Asperger disorder or a 'PDD-Not Otherwise Specified' (PDD-NOS). Doing some research on the web pointed me to some Wired pages, like the Autism-Spectrum Quotient, or AQ (where I scored 35, average being about 16). At the end of the test, there is a link to a 6 pages article entitled The Geek Syndrome which basically discusses the Asperger Syndrome, relating it to geeks. The article is somewhat old, but in a recent news, autism in California has increased 100%. Do 'geeks' have a higher tendency toward conditions like PDD/Asperger? I saw a lot of me in the Wired article, and was wondering if others on Slashdot have the same problem in their life, or if they have been diagnosed with a PDD?" Note that Asperger Syndrome is not the same as ADHD but methods useful for coping with one may be useful in coping with the other. Also, please don't take an internet test seriously when attempting to diagnose any kind of mental instability. Instead, if you are worried about such results, share them with your family doctor.

Slashback tonight has followups and clarifications on glitch-delayed Pentium IV shipments, Free software for chainware operating systems, the real distinction between 3G and 2.5G phone systems and more -- read on below for the details.

More RAM than I can afford. RyanT5000 writes "The article referenced in "Getting Rid of the Disks" incorrectly states that the maximum RAM for a 32-bit Intel compatible system is 4 GB. This was true up to and including the original Pentium processor, and it makes a lot of sense (after all, 2^32 = 4 294 967 296). However, with the Pentium Pro, Intel added 4 pins to the address bus, expanding the maximum physical address space to 64 GB (using paging, since it still uses 32 bit addressing). I would assume AMD has a similar feature. If you're on Windows, you'll need a server version to get above 4 GB, but most major Linux/BSD/etc. OSes support it. This would probably be cheaper (and definitely faster) than SCSI SSDs. If you need more than 64 GB of solid state storage, you probably shouldn't be running on an Intel."

"Free" always makes people suspicious. imevil writes "A while ago slashdotters asked some questions to the GNUWin II team. Well, here are the answers. In the meantime, more people joined the team, and more languages were added (this one looks pretty cool)." There's also a short article about GNUWin running at NewsForge.

On a related note, cos(0) writes "According to this(1), this(2), and other stories, many people are interested in running open source, high-quality software on MS Windows. The author of this site provides an up-to-date CD image of the latest versions of numerous high-quality OSS applications (complete list on the site), updated monthly, downloadable via BitTorrent. (The same site also offers a web-based Code Beautifier.)"

Cool distribution method! (And if you're on dialup, $5 seems like a great bargain -- Are you listening, Cheapbytes?)

Toys are so tempting to the wallet ... OrenWolf writes "Ars Technica Has a review up of BroadQ's QCast Tuner software. Unlike the earlier /. review, this article goes into great detail about the technical capabilities of the software. A must read for PS2 owners looking for a PC-PVR-esque solution."

Yeah, but does this review include any original software? ;) And david_adams writes "Slashdot linked to an article I wrote last month about my experience with a CDMA2000 1x wireless network from SprintPCS. It sparked quite a bit of controversy, but not for the reasons I expected. Because I called Sprint's service 3G in the title, but admitted it was 2.5G in the first paragraph, I heard from people on both sides, chiding me on the one hand for calling it 3G, and on the other for calling it 2.5G. I decided to research and write a new article to get to the bottom of it. What is truly 3G? Where is the line between 2.5G and 3G?"

The time to wait is now! ThunderDawg writes "Intel resumed Canterwood Pentium 4 3 GHz 800FSB shipments yesterday. TAFKAEFKAF (The Anomaly Formerly Known as Errata Formerly Known as Flaw) was corrected with a software patch.

Intel is again shipping its new 3GHz Pentium 4 processor, a week after it halted shipments due to the discovery of an "anomaly," an Intel spokesman said Monday. PC makers that use the chip in their systems have been supplied with a software update to fix the issue, George Alfs, an Intel spokesman said. Vendors including Hewlett-Packard, Dell Computer, and Gateway introduced desktop systems based on the chip when it was released on Monday last week. The issue with the 3GHz Pentium 4 with support for an 800MHz system bus occurs only in rare circumstances and users are unlikely to be affected, according to Alfs."

I'd take google and a strong AI any day. hondo77 writes "A bit of a followup to this article from back in February, LexisNexis has been named the publisher of official reports by the California Supreme Court, according to this press release. "The public will have free access to the official text of the opinions at a Web site hosted by LexisNexis linked to the court's Web site." IANAL but it doesn't sound ominous to me."

www.sorehands.com writes "This morning, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Intel v. Hamidi. This is a case where Ken Hamidi, an ex-employee of Intel build a website that complained of Intel's employment practices and sent emails to all of Intel's employees. Intel tried to block Hamidi's emails, then Intel filed a lawsuit for several claims including tresspass to chattel." ess' to the server and the first ammendment." Read on below for a few more notes from Mr. Hands about the Hamidi case (mentioned on Slashdot a few times before). Update: 04/03 00:56 GMT by T : That should be "Hamidi" throughout, not "Hamibi."

"Intel argued that Hamidi's sending the email disturbed the employees and interfered with their business. causing lost productivity.

Hamidi argued that Intel only complained because the the content. That Intel dropped the nuisance claim because Intel would have had to argue the content and that Intel could not file a libel claim, where did not dispute the truth of the statements in the email or the website.

This case will set the lines of control for one's own servers. From the spammer's claims that if you are on the internet, they have full rights to hijack servers and fill your mailbox with viagra offers, to the ability of an ex-friend filing a lawsuit when you asked for the $20 that they borrowed.

I spoke with Hamidi, and he takes the position that if you have email, then you are agreeing to accept non-commercial email because of the 'public access' to the server and the first ammendment."

linuxwrangler writes "In preparation for the national do not call registry, California's Attorney General has established a pre-registration site for California residents. Based on how slow the site already is, this is going to be one popular program. The AG's announcement also mentions that they have shut down some scam sites offering do-not-call registration so caveat emptor. Are any other states offering similar services?"

gessel writes "The California Attorney General's Office is looking for examples of spam e-mails being sent to consumers in violation of California anti-spam law, particularly from spammers operating in California. Send 'em to caspam@cadoj.samspade.org as well as to uce@ftc.org."

Gizmo Kid asks: "How many of you Californian, full-time, software programmers are getting paid overtime? From what I understand, a law in California, passed within the last two years, says that software engineers who make less than $41/hour [PDF version] are required to be paid for overtime? Are your employers following the rules? I'm not sure mine is?"

Gizmo Kid asks: "How many of you Californian, full-time, software programmers are getting paid overtime? From what I understand, a law in California, passed within the last two years, says that software engineers who make less than $41/hour [PDF version] are required to be paid for overtime? Are your employers following the rules? I'm not sure mine is?"

California is considering a proposal by the state Public Utilities Commission to charge an 'exit tax,' proportional to the amount of power you generate, on electricity generated by means such as solar panels for your own use. I would expect a state like California to try and encourage the adoption of alternative power sources, but this seems a really odd way of doing it. Two groups have started lobbying against this tax. If passed, it sets a precedent that many fear will lead to similar taxes outside CA.

joebeone writes "The California Supreme Court has suprisingly ruled that Matthew Pavlovich is not within their jurisdiction in the DVD-CCA's suit against his posting of DeCSS in relation to the development of the LiViD DVD player for open operating systems. What's surprising? It's surprising that they held that his posting of DeCSS was not actionable... (however the use of the program by users to circumvent CSS could be under the DMCA)."

joebeone writes "The California Supreme Court has suprisingly ruled that Matthew Pavlovich is not within their jurisdiction in the DVD-CCA's suit against his posting of DeCSS in relation to the development of the LiViD DVD player for open operating systems. What's surprising? It's surprising that they held that his posting of DeCSS was not actionable... (however the use of the program by users to circumvent CSS could be under the DMCA)."

bscottid writes "Woo-hoo! The monorail passed in Seattle!. And, it was driven by an amazing grass-roots effort of people who saw a way to use technology to get us moving again here in The Emerald City. Everyone mark your calendars, because in 2007 you're invited up here to take a quick, scenic ride around the beautiful city of Seattle! (Begin Simpsons references now)" It's also worth pointing out that in the recent california election, a pair of bills were passed which put aside approximately $10b for the construction of California's high speed rail project.

bscottid writes "Woo-hoo! The monorail passed in Seattle!. And, it was driven by an amazing grass-roots effort of people who saw a way to use technology to get us moving again here in The Emerald City. Everyone mark your calendars, because in 2007 you're invited up here to take a quick, scenic ride around the beautiful city of Seattle! (Begin Simpsons references now)" It's also worth pointing out that in the recent california election, a pair of bills were passed which put aside approximately $10b for the construction of California's high speed rail project.

legal_tinker writes "At grep.law, Tait Graves writes: 'In a majority of states, you can be enjoined from starting a new job because of what you know, even if you have done nothing wrong.' A California court just rejected that idea in California."

angkor writes "Riding the world's fastest train @ 500 kph - some lucky people got a chance to ride on this experimental train. The Japan Times has the story." I like the part where the wheels retract as it starts picking up speed, with the train floating 10cm over the tracks. If only the California high-speed rail system was up and running.

cindy writes "LA artist Richard Ankrom got fed up with the terrible signage on the Harbor Freeway. Rather than wait for CalTrans to do something about it, he decided to take matters into his own hands. He carefully made additional signage and added it to an existing freeway sign. The results were so good that no one, including CalTrans, noticed for months! The LA Times has an article including some of the video shot by the artist to document his "crime.""

kinesis writes: "For those of you following the California DeCSS case, a court of appeal just ruled in our favor, overturning the injunction imposed by a lower court. The court's opinion is available in DOC and PDF versions. It's a great read for those who want to really understand the case. The conclusion is nicely summarized with this quote: 'In the case of a prior restraint on pure speech, the hurdle is substantially higher [than for an ordinary preliminary injunction]: publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint, even faced with the competing interest of national security or the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.' " Or you can go straight to the PDF.

kinesis writes: "For those of you following the California DeCSS case, a court of appeal just ruled in our favor, overturning the injunction imposed by a lower court. The court's opinion is available in DOC and PDF versions. It's a great read for those who want to really understand the case. The conclusion is nicely summarized with this quote: 'In the case of a prior restraint on pure speech, the hurdle is substantially higher [than for an ordinary preliminary injunction]: publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint, even faced with the competing interest of national security or the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.' " Or you can go straight to the PDF.

Ames Cornish writes: "The non-profit SDForum's Internet Security and Privacy group is sponsoring a panel on National Security versus Individual Privacy on Wednesday evening, Oct 17th in Silicon Valley. It includes representatives from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the California Office of Emergency Services, KPMG Israel, and the Technology Editor from the San Jose Mercury News. The panel will address both sides of controversial topics including the 'Patriot' Act, Carnivore, encryption back-doors, and questions from the audience. This event is an excellent way to participate in intelligent debate about the role of technology in Homeland Security and Civil Liberties. Get your issues heard, and watch the sparks fly!"

The Sixth District Court of Appeals has denied Matt Pavlovich's challenge to being sued in California for the act of posting DeCSS on an internet web site. CNet has a blurb about it, or go straight to the ruling. The Court apparently believes that "open source" is shorthand for "pirate ring", as evidenced by their description: "At the time Pavlovich posted DeCSS on the Internet, he was a leader in the "open source" movement, the purpose of which was to make as much material as possible available over the Internet." Blatantly false statements like "Further; Pavlovich knew that his Web site allowed the illegal publishing and distribution of DVDs." do nothing to make me think the Court even understands what is alleged to have occurred. And since the Court describes Pavlovich's activities as "illegal", it appears to have already decided the main issue of the case itself (which has not yet been tried). Not good omens for the California DeCSS case. Below we have commentary from the attorney representing Pavlovich.

Appellate Court Issues Precedent Setting Ruling in Cyber-Jurisdiction ruling

The Sixth District Court of Appeals has issued its ruling in the jurisdictional case filed by Indiana student Matt Pavlovich, a foreign defendant in the California DVD case. You may recall that Pavlovich had moved the trial court to dismiss him from the main DVD action due to lack of jurisdiction. When the trial court denied his motion, Pavlovich filed a petition for Writ of Mandate with the Court of Appeals - that court summarily denied his petition. Pavlovich then turned to the Supreme Court for relief by way of a Petition for Review. In a rare move, all seven justices of the Supreme Court unanimously granted review and sent the matter back to the Court of Appeals with instructions that they re-consider the case. Following additional filings and oral arguments, today the Court of Appeals issued a published, written opinion again denying Pavlovich's petition. The Court's order will be available on our web site at www.legal.wao.com shortly, and is also accessible through the Court of Appeal's site.

Today's opinion dramatically increases the jurisdictional reach of California's court system, creating nearly limitless jurisdiction over internet disputes involving the motion picture industry, the technology industry, and any other industry reputed to exist in California. Because the exercise of jurisdiction is fundamentally a question of state power, we contend that this type of hyper-extension of California's long-arm statute violates the Constitutional safeguards found within the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Because the decision affects the Constitutional Rights of U.S. Citizens everywhere, we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will again grant review of the Appellate Court's decision.

The underlying California Case:

Pavlovich, along with Andrew Bunner and some 500 other individual defendants, have been targeted by the Motion Picture Industry trade group DVD CCA in the California case. DVD CCA alleges that the defendants, who allegedly found the DeCSS information on the World Wide Web and then republished it, may not continue to publish the information based on California's Uniform Trade Secret's Act. Bunner claims that, like any other innocent republisher of information, he has a constitutionally protected right to publish this particular information and is not liable under the UTSA. Bunner, along with Amicus briefs from the prestigious IEEE and ACIS groups, also argues that the information he republished was properly and permissibly reverse-engineered and as such cannot be enjoined under the UTSA. In his papers, Bunner explains that Reverse-Engineering, along with the publication of technical discoveries, has long been a mainstay of innovation and evolution in the field of high-technology. Enjoining the publication of technical information, and stopping permissible reverse-engineering, would necessarily empower entities to use technologies like CSS to manipulate markets and bar consumer protections.

NEW YORK CASE:

The New York case continues through the appellate process. Appellants presented oral arguments before the appeals court and have recently responded to a number of written questions posed by the court. Additional resources are available at www.eff.org.

Resources:

HS Law Group's web site with information about the DeCSS cases:www.legal.wao.com

http://www.cryptome.org- tends to get the most recent filings fairly quickly

EFF Archive for DVD-CCA Cal. trade secret case: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/

EFF's DVD Archive: http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DVD/

Allonn E. Levy, Esq.

HS LAW GROUP a.p.c.
210 N. Fourth St. Fourth Fl.
San Jose, CA 95112

The Sixth District Court of Appeals has denied Matt Pavlovich's challenge to being sued in California for the act of posting DeCSS on an internet web site. CNet has a blurb about it, or go straight to the ruling. The Court apparently believes that "open source" is shorthand for "pirate ring", as evidenced by their description: "At the time Pavlovich posted DeCSS on the Internet, he was a leader in the "open source" movement, the purpose of which was to make as much material as possible available over the Internet." Blatantly false statements like "Further; Pavlovich knew that his Web site allowed the illegal publishing and distribution of DVDs." do nothing to make me think the Court even understands what is alleged to have occurred. And since the Court describes Pavlovich's activities as "illegal", it appears to have already decided the main issue of the case itself (which has not yet been tried). Not good omens for the California DeCSS case. Below we have commentary from the attorney representing Pavlovich.

Appellate Court Issues Precedent Setting Ruling in Cyber-Jurisdiction ruling

The Sixth District Court of Appeals has issued its ruling in the jurisdictional case filed by Indiana student Matt Pavlovich, a foreign defendant in the California DVD case. You may recall that Pavlovich had moved the trial court to dismiss him from the main DVD action due to lack of jurisdiction. When the trial court denied his motion, Pavlovich filed a petition for Writ of Mandate with the Court of Appeals - that court summarily denied his petition. Pavlovich then turned to the Supreme Court for relief by way of a Petition for Review. In a rare move, all seven justices of the Supreme Court unanimously granted review and sent the matter back to the Court of Appeals with instructions that they re-consider the case. Following additional filings and oral arguments, today the Court of Appeals issued a published, written opinion again denying Pavlovich's petition. The Court's order will be available on our web site at www.legal.wao.com shortly, and is also accessible through the Court of Appeal's site.

Today's opinion dramatically increases the jurisdictional reach of California's court system, creating nearly limitless jurisdiction over internet disputes involving the motion picture industry, the technology industry, and any other industry reputed to exist in California. Because the exercise of jurisdiction is fundamentally a question of state power, we contend that this type of hyper-extension of California's long-arm statute violates the Constitutional safeguards found within the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Because the decision affects the Constitutional Rights of U.S. Citizens everywhere, we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will again grant review of the Appellate Court's decision.

The underlying California Case:

Pavlovich, along with Andrew Bunner and some 500 other individual defendants, have been targeted by the Motion Picture Industry trade group DVD CCA in the California case. DVD CCA alleges that the defendants, who allegedly found the DeCSS information on the World Wide Web and then republished it, may not continue to publish the information based on California's Uniform Trade Secret's Act. Bunner claims that, like any other innocent republisher of information, he has a constitutionally protected right to publish this particular information and is not liable under the UTSA. Bunner, along with Amicus briefs from the prestigious IEEE and ACIS groups, also argues that the information he republished was properly and permissibly reverse-engineered and as such cannot be enjoined under the UTSA. In his papers, Bunner explains that Reverse-Engineering, along with the publication of technical discoveries, has long been a mainstay of innovation and evolution in the field of high-technology. Enjoining the publication of technical information, and stopping permissible reverse-engineering, would necessarily empower entities to use technologies like CSS to manipulate markets and bar consumer protections.

NEW YORK CASE:

The New York case continues through the appellate process. Appellants presented oral arguments before the appeals court and have recently responded to a number of written questions posed by the court. Additional resources are available at www.eff.org.

Resources:

HS Law Group's web site with information about the DeCSS cases:www.legal.wao.com

http://www.cryptome.org- tends to get the most recent filings fairly quickly

EFF Archive for DVD-CCA Cal. trade secret case: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/

EFF's DVD Archive: http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DVD/

Allonn E. Levy, Esq.

HS LAW GROUP a.p.c.
210 N. Fourth St. Fourth Fl.
San Jose, CA 95112

Keith Henson was arraigned on charges of "misdemeanor terrorism" last September. Last month the jury deadlocked on those charges, but convicted him of making threats to interfere with the constitutional privilege of enjoying religious freedom. He was not present at his sentencing hearing yesterday and is a fugitive from justice, apparently planning to claim asylum in Canada. If you've ever flamed anyone in an online forum, and think you have a right to carry a picket sign, you need to study this miscarriage of justice. Details below. Update by J : freehenson.tripod.com has been taken down, so I'm linking to a mirror.

"Religious bigotry will not be tolerated in Riverside County," was a Scientology spokesperson's reaction to the verdict.

That's basically the problem right there. The First Amendment gives me the right to be a bigot as long as I don't hurt or threaten anyone. You don't have to like my opinions, but you do have to tolerate them.

If you've ever hung out in an online forum, you'll probably get deja vu reading this Usenet thread. The first message posted is a description of cruising past some Scientology related buildings, complete with GPS coordinates for whatever reason. It's written as a self-mocking, satirical sendup of spy movies. The remainder of the thread is jokes in the same vein.

The question is whether this running gag about "Tom Cruise Missile Coordinates" (get it?) could be taken seriously enough to qualify as a threat under Section 11415 of the California Penal Code.

As I read the recently-passed law, if you go along with the jokes about the "handheld laser guidance system," you might be a terrorist:

Any person who knowingly threatens to use a weapon of mass destruction [including] by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out ...

The fact that the person who allegedly violated this section did not actually possess a biological agent, toxin, or chemical weapon does not constitute a defense to the crime specified in this section.

The victim of said terrorism must have been in "sustained fear" of the threat being carried out. And how does the law know your victim was in sustained fear? Because he or she evacuated the building -- or took "any other action."

Here's what Henson says. In this case, the Scientology organization's legal team managed to bar any evidence from being presented about why Henson was picketing the Scientology location (because of two unusual deaths within a month).

Nor was the context of the above thread, or context of Henson's other Usenet posts, allowed to be introduced. For example, the jury could not see the context of the above thread; they only saw Henson's contribution to the running gag:

Modern weapons are accurate to a matter of a few tens of yards. The terminal guidence ones are good to single digits.

Of the next quote, the jury was only allowed to see the first sentence, not the second:

The only way I can get clear of this scientology mess is to "destroy them utterly." So: This week I will be back picketing gold base.

And you can decide what you think his third quote means, but again you have the advantage of its context being just a click away:

PPS Killing the organization off entirely is the best way to change the future of Scientology.

Worse still, according to Henson's at-the-time lawyer, whether these statements caused fear in some Scientologists was decided not by the statements he actually made, but by hearsay versions they got from others. He points out that Scientology's censorware package ("Scienositter") would have blocked the original Usenet posts anyway:

...cult members, who are not allowed access to the Internet and are actively prevented (by the Church of Scientology "net nanny") from reading the newsgroups on which Henson posts, may have an unreasonable and irrational fear based on unreasonable and out of context statements of which they were informed selectively, but which they did not read.

So picture Keith Henson's situation. He feels strongly about his particular cause. He peacefully carries a picket sign. He exercises his First Amendment right to post on Usenet about what he's doing and why -- and in so doing he uses sentences and phrases which, in context, clearly are not threats, but out of context could be construed that way.

Dragged into court, all context is stripped away and -- while he narrowly escapes conviction as a domestic terrorist -- he is convicted of using the threat of force against people who may never have actually read what he wrote.

If you're smart, you'll take Henson's case as a warning. You'll think about what your own statements would look like, with their context totally removed, and in the harsh spotlight of a courtroom. Do you really need to post that joke, or wouldn't the judge find it funny?

You'll soften up your opinions just a little, trying not to change what you mean while trying to change what you could be twisted to mean.

Maybe it's not such a great loss for you or me; we're not great writers anyway, and if we censor ourselves before hitting Save, maybe that's not the end of the world. We weren't really going to use that First Amendment right anyway, you know?

But somewhere out there is a Mark Twain who's had it up to here and is poised to pen a caustic attack on a religion which will become an important classic. As of yesterday, Mark's a bit more likely to live in Canada.

Until this week, I've been unconvinced by those who say the U.S. election process needs to be conducted with computers instead of paper, pencil, and punchcards. I've changed my mind. It's time to take a good hard look at our ancient voting system, and bring it up to date. When today's 14-year-olds go to vote in the 2004 elections, will they still take the pencil from the volunteer, slide the punchcard into the molded plastic, and turn the weird knobs? Or will they use the technology they've grown up with?

My change of heart came while listening to an NPR story last night. Election results for one county in Michigan were held up for two hours because some volunteers with ballots were barricaded in the building by a bear. A bear! What century is this?

There are some fair concerns about moving to a more-than-just-dead-trees voting system. We have to consider what the impact will be on voter enfranchisement. A change that makes it possible for the rich to vote by telepathy, for example, while the poor have to drive a hundred miles uphill both ways (to access a non-telepathic voting booth) would not be exactly democratic.

Would it have been fair, in 2000, for the middle class to be able to vote from the comfort of their homes and jobs, while the poor and homeless had to get to a voting booth? I don't know.

But my best guess is that, by 2004, this won't be a question anymore. Plot the percentage of lower-income homes with internet access from 1996 to 2000, and then extrapolate another four years. So if it should be done, how can it be done? There are five key issues to solve: authorization, anonymity, data confidence, UI, and security.

I propose a system in which each voting booth runs a webserver which logs votes (without identification) to two internal media (hard disk and floppy would be good, see below). Once the polls close, each booth's computer can be totalled and sent over the internet to the state's central server.

Meanwhile, any computer that speaks https on the internet would become a voting booth of its own, running slightly different software.

Each state's official results could be in an hour after its polls close. Which beats the ten-day waiting period we have now for our overseas ballots.

Authorization isn't really that hard: When you register to vote, you (by default) get a password delivered by snail-mail a week before the election. Tampering with that mail is a federal offense, of course. On election day you use secure http to sign in from anywhere with your name, address and password. Lose the password? Sorry, you don't get the comfort of home/work; you go to the voting booth with everyone else.

Anonymity is trivial; any logs with identifying information either don't get stored, or get wiped immediately.

Computers crash. Data confidence means the servers write the votes to multiple media: network, hard drive, flash RAM. A dot-matrix printer makes a good emergency backup medium.

This system also needs a dirt-simple GUI for voters connecting from home or work. No butterfly webpages necessary; click a name, and get a confirmation screen that shows you name, party, (importantly) photo, and big "yes" and "no" buttons.

At the voting booth it can be even simpler, using touch-screens.

Security is, of course, always a problem. Secure http effectively eliminates the man-in-the-middle attack, so the main worry are that an attacker will be able to run unauthorized code on a government computer which could (read) correlate my name with my vote or (write) change my vote. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a completely open-sourced system, from the kernel up, combined with clean-room installations at a secure location, can make these concerns minor by comparison to existing vote-fraud concerns.

(My vote would go to OpenBSD, Apache, and Mozilla, though of course good luck predicting what will be best four years from now.)

Also, net admins overseeing the effort need to have enough access to track and lock out attackers, but obviously they can't have access to change the election results. Lock them in a room for the day with a hundred video cameras tracking everything they do, like the officers on missile-launch duty. Many net admins will find this a relaxed and enjoyable work environment compared to their current jobs.

There are many problems that have to be solved -- please bring up the ones I haven't mentioned here, let's start the debate! My hunch is that they can be solved. And the overriding question must be, will it be an improvement over the current system?

Given that Florida's election is being decided by a 400-vote difference, with 19,000 botched votes thrown out, I'd say the impossibility of clicking on two presidential choices at the same time makes this system a huge win.

The broken user interface on our existing punch-cards system is probably going to give us the wrong President of the United States. How much worse could a digital system really be? I don't claim to have all the answers, but I know what century it is, and the time for Little House on the Prairie nonsense is over. Let's make this happen for 2004.

I'll give my last word to Andre Uratsuka Manoel, a partner at the internet firm Insite, in Brazil. (Props to TBTF for putting Andre and me in touch.)

Brazil has a 100% electronic election. On election day I go my "electoral section," identify myself, sign my name. The "section president" then types in my code and I walk to the booth which is in a corner of the room where no one can see my vote. I then type the number of my candidate, see his/her photo and press "confirm."

The voting machines store the votes in at least three different places: a floppy disk (which is locked), a flash card and the internal hard disk. There are written procedures for any kind of failure I could think of and back-up machines readily available. Those machines can connect to a phone line and send their results to the Election Court of the state.

The results are proclamed extremely fast. On the mayoral run-off elections that happened 2 weeks ago, results were out 2 hours after the election in the city I live in (Sao Paulo, with about 6 million voters) and 6 hours after it in the last city in which there was a run-off. In my home city the results came out a little after the election sites closed and the result was proclamed with the winner having 40 thousand votes more than the second place (0.4% of 1 million votes).

In the first round of elections in Sao Paulo, the third place contestant lost the ticket for the run-off elections by less than 0.1%. The one who lost didn't even think of contesting the results because no one thought there were any kind of frauds.

In the first round, 100 million voters (about the same as the active voters in US) in 5 thousand cities chose their mayors and councelors. All the results were proclaimed 30 hours after the voting closed.

This happens in a country that has a much lower level of literacy, technology-savvy and of money as the U.S. Remember that some mayors were chosen in places hours away from anyplace else (even by plane), i.e. in the middle of the rain forest. Those places don't have electricity.

Of course there were complaints, but not because of the electoral process. Mostly they were due to campaigning on the election day, voter transportation and coercion.

(Updates: Dave Riesz mentioned Riverside County, California, which has an electronic voting system already in place. Their 2000 primary turnout was the highest in 20 years, which may or may not mean anything. That led me to the California Internet Voting Task Force which looks interesting. Don Wegeng pointed me to RISKS thoughts by Douglas Jones. Brian Dunbar points out "Hurrah for Slow Recounts" by the always-interesting Ellen Ullman.

Lee Coursey passes along Elizabeth Ferrill's Discussion of Electronic Voting. James McCann, a programmer at VoteHere.net, says my description is "not terribly far off but very incomplete" -- I'll take that as a compliment -- check out his site and SecurePoll.com too. And finally, a story in Salon that makes my point better than I could: "Confessions of a Florida Poll Worker."

If you have more links or information, emailme.)

Misch writes: "On September 22, the legislature of the state of California has passed a ban on the commercial distribution of lecture notes. Needless to say, there are going to be some definite free speech issues to be played out here. "This lecture is copyrighted by the Board of Regents of the State of California, and is intended for the sole use of a student sitting in the classroom. All images, sounds and ideas presented may not be re-used without the express written consent of Major League Baseball." Text of the bill here. And, of course, there's the people in favor of the ban."

Interestingly, part of the explanatory text of the bill points out that "[e]xisting case law provides that in the absence of evidence of agreement to the contrary, a teacher, rather than the institution for which he or she teaches, owns the common law copyright to his or her lectures." That does seem to make some sense, but are notes "the lecture"? If I draw a sketch of a painting, does the original artist own my sketch, too? (Or in this case, does the University of California?)

If "commericial" distribution is prohibited, what about non-commericial? If this spreads to Texas, I know a few businesses on Austin's Drag that would have to quickly rethink their operations. Absent rigorous NDAs, is it fair to restrict the information in a lecture? A video or audio recording is one thing, but notes are by their nature different from the original lecture. Sharing lecture notes is not akin to "sharing" term papers or stealing tests. Wouldn't this be akin to declaring that a reader is not allowed to summarize the content of a book he borrows from the library, or purchases outright?

Gnutella Gnotes, anyone?

Misch writes: "On September 22, the legislature of the state of California has passed a ban on the commercial distribution of lecture notes. Needless to say, there are going to be some definite free speech issues to be played out here. "This lecture is copyrighted by the Board of Regents of the State of California, and is intended for the sole use of a student sitting in the classroom. All images, sounds and ideas presented may not be re-used without the express written consent of Major League Baseball." Text of the bill here. And, of course, there's the people in favor of the ban."

Interestingly, part of the explanatory text of the bill points out that "[e]xisting case law provides that in the absence of evidence of agreement to the contrary, a teacher, rather than the institution for which he or she teaches, owns the common law copyright to his or her lectures." That does seem to make some sense, but are notes "the lecture"? If I draw a sketch of a painting, does the original artist own my sketch, too? (Or in this case, does the University of California?)

If "commericial" distribution is prohibited, what about non-commericial? If this spreads to Texas, I know a few businesses on Austin's Drag that would have to quickly rethink their operations. Absent rigorous NDAs, is it fair to restrict the information in a lecture? A video or audio recording is one thing, but notes are by their nature different from the original lecture. Sharing lecture notes is not akin to "sharing" term papers or stealing tests. Wouldn't this be akin to declaring that a reader is not allowed to summarize the content of a book he borrows from the library, or purchases outright?

Gnutella Gnotes, anyone?

Cy Guy writes "Legislation signed by California Governor Gray Davis today establishes an Office Personal Privacy within the Office of Consumer Affairs, where consumers will be able to file greivances if they feel their privacy has been violated. Read the Press Release for more info." Says it will open for business in 2002. Why the delay?

Chad Schmidt linked us to a ZD story where they suggest that Dr. Dre, following his suit against Napster, may go after users directly. I'm kinda torn, I mean, these users are committing theft by distributing MP3s, but there sure are a lot of them. On the other hand, this does open up a new and exciting revenue stream for music superstars who just aren't making as much money selling albums any more *grin*.

Ant (and others) sent in a link to this Salon story that talks about grueling overtime hours in Silicon Valley and how the traditional tech-haus 80 hour work week may conflict with assorted labor laws, especially a new bill that made its way through the California Legislature late last week. A more recent Wired piece claims California Governor Grey Davis is expected to sign the legislation into law later this week, and has a link to the full text of the bill. Will this mean fewer high-tech start-ups in California and more in places like Virginia, where there are hardly any labor laws? Or will Silicon Valley people take life a little easier now, and take a few hours each week to spend some of the money they're making? Or will labor lawyers make all the money? Hard to tell.