Slashdot Mirror

TOR is really, really slow, and has lag that'll make elephants impatient. Otherwise, it's pretty cool...

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Otherwise, why would copyright law list the right "to reproduce" and the right "to distribute" separately? Additionally, according to the EFF, "it's not clear how a court would rule on private, noncommercial format-shifting by an individual consumer who owns the music in another format."

Your organization's Internet use policy restricts access to this web page at this time.

Reason:

The Websense category "Proxy Avoidance" is filtered.

URL:

http://tor.eff.org/

TOR helps people in oppressive countries freely access information and it needs to grow.
http://tor.eff.org/

The article mentions: "(We did not clone any of our passport chips on the assumption that to do so would be illegal.)"

But still, if MPAA can say that "After the DMCA, they (=MPAA) simply argue that "circumvention" of the CSS encryption on DVDs is forbidden by the DMCA, fair use or not."[1] then breaking the encryption of ICAO should be illegal as well! You are not allowed to prove them wrong!

SUE THEM I SAY! :P

[1] Ref: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005010.php

Reverse engineering of file formats is legal.

Apparently you haven't heard of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act

However, there is a very famous case where the manufacturer's of VCRs were sued under copyright law. The point is that Betamax won, and now the RIAA and the DMCA is trying to reverse that decision.

I guess Mr. Sherman never heard of SONY v. Universal Studios, the Betamax case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that noncommercial home time shifting of television broadcasts onto video tapes was a fair use.

"It is not spin to point out abuse of words and encourage accurate usage in accordance with actual definitions."

Not that you're ever a slave to "actual definitions". You've been known to partake in a little spin yourself.

"Copyright infringement and theft are two different crimes. No one has ever shown even one example of anything being stolen via p2p."

And there you couldn't be more wrong. Here's the judgement that proves it: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/04-480.pd f

Look on page 50 of the of the pdf or simply search for "theft".

"...And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."

and the definition of theft is "The crime of taking someone else's property without consent".

In other words, krell, unlawful copying IS the same as the unlawful taking of property and therefore IS the same as theft. This was not only proven but it was the unamimous decision of SCOTUS and those were the exact words of Justice Breyer. It gets no more definitive than that.

Of course, you will discard Breyer as being ignorant on the law as you already have. Anything that doesn't agree with your world view doesn't exist and any evidence to the contrary must be incorrect. Continue to parrot the meaningless and incorrect warcry that copyright infringment isn't theft as though that somehow justifies illegal behavior.

As long as you get what you want, there's no reason to think beyond justifying it, right krell?

Slashdotters, trollers, and pollsters one and all, what say you? Disingenuous or dissembling?

All of the above. I have the right to use my media as I see fit. What, is he next going to claim that ripping my own CDs is illegal? Pesky "Fair Use", it's holding back commerce and hurting the economy. Hey, we have record executives to feed! They have children to put through ivy league schools! And Hummers to buy! The rabble is getting just too damn uppity, I say. Do you honestly think that's disingenuous?

Sheesh!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go download last nights Frisky Dingo episode.

Is it censorship if the Internet content/connection suppression is performed not by the government, but by a cartel of corporations that control the nation's traffic on their backbones?

The cultish Scientology/EST offshoot known as The Landmark Forum has claimed copyright infringement against Google and YouTube. The EFF has extensive details and are trying to squash that case.

Background: In 2004 a French TV channel had someone with a hidden camera go to a Landmark Forum indoctrination weekend. The expose was shown to 1.5 million viewers. Soon after the broadcast, Landmark left France. A similar situation occured in Sweden a few years before.

Landmark has no valid copyright in either case but, having learned a lesson from Scientology, are now resorting to intimidation and abuse of the DMCA and court system.

In any event, fire up BitTorrent and get the French video with English subtitles at Pirate Bay and a Swedish expose on Landmark, sans subtitles at the moment, at this link.

You will definately want to see these in case one of your family members or friends starts to push you to take a weekend course "that will create new possibilities"...

Spread the word, knowledge is power.

Sounds very similar to the case of Landmark Education misusing the DMCA to issue subpoenas against Internet Archive, as described at

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/

The video in question can be downloaded on BitTorrent at

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3537369/2003_Inside_La ndmark_Forum.avi

Lets face it, it is just not possible to enforce this kind of law.

With Onion Routing Networks, Mixmaster Type II Anonymous Email, GPG/PGP Type I Anonymous remailers , and bidirectional encrypted anonymous e-mail addresses that can deliver to a news group
Add to this the use of unsecured 802.11 networks and there is just no way to stop a person that truly wants to be anonymous on the internet.

Unfortunately most do not know how to use them, so most of the internet is only sudo-anonymous.

It would be an interesting task not to let your Fonera route visitors directly towards the internet, but to pass them through a TOR proxy of some sort. That way, you could hide the connection between the IP address given to you by your ISP and the activites those Linuses, Bills and Aliens are doing with your connection.

Well, there's a really simple solution. Ban software patents. We don't have them here in the EU, so I don't care about this pact. On the other hand, it's becoming increasingly difficult to keep it that way, and the argument is always the need to 'harmonise' our patent system with the USA, so you guys in Leftpondia could make our lives a lot easier if you'd spend some time slapping your elected representatives. My MEP is an active member of the FFII. Will you be voting for active EFF supporters tomorrow?

Or you could just Tor.

No, it isn't just .NET. Microsoft has such restrictions in the EULAs for other products as well, such as XML and SQL Server. See this EFF piece on problems with EULAs. To be fair, this isn't new in VISTA - Microsoft has had these restrictions since at least 2003, and it isn't just Microsoft that does this. Other companies with similar EULAs include McAfee and VMware.

Comedy Central's clips are a start. A more serious matter is the misuse of the DMCA in efforts to stifle criticism.

An offshoot of the Scientology cult known as The Landmark Forum is using the DMCA against YouTube, Google and The Internet Archive because of a scathing French documentary about Landmark being shared on those sites. It aired in France to 1.5 million people, a month later Landmark pulled out of France. Story at the EFF's site and other news sources.

The video with English subtitles is available via BitTorrent at PirateBay, search eMule for "Inside Landmark Forum" or view it online at DailyMotion.

***"The rest of the bit about license backup, specifically where it tells you how to back up your licenses, is valuable context."***

The context informs you that what you used to be able to do on a disconnected system ("back up licenses") now requires an internet connection so their daemon can phone home for permission to "restore your media usage rights". This is not even close to the same thing.

***"if you care about the MCE thing... seems like there's a fix available."***

I missed the news of the October 24 Rollup's release, so thanks. After taking a backup image of my system disk, I'll see what it does. Let's be clear, though: I mentioned that the 3-day MCE/TV issue was mentioned in the WMP11 *beta* release notes & didn't appear to be present in WMP11 final. The DRM-ing of recorded TV by MCE, though, is not a bug, it's a "feature," as is the DVD playback restriction. (On any consumer DVD recorder / player I've seen, personal recordings are not DRMd, and one can play commercial DVDs through component video to any HDTV.) And I stand by the reasonableness of my speculation about the 3-day bug: Its presence in the WMP11 beta and the explanation of its remedy in the October Rollup release notes both suggest that work is going on to make WMP a vehicle for modifying DRM components that control expiration features on recorded TV in Media Center. I think it's quite reasonable that some people would postpone or forgo a WMP11 install without some assurances to the contrary.

***"Regardless of your pro/anti-Microsoft sentiment,"***

Hold on a minute: Microsoft's existence and ubiquity enables me to make a living, so I am not anti-Microsoft. As a consumer of at-home operating systems, though, I am viewing MS with an increasingly jaundiced eye, and with good reason. Windows is fast becoming the most restrictive media playback platform on the market, and its media lockdowns go far beyond what's required by copyright law & device licensing regulations, e.g. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003807.php. On any other software PVR I've tried, there are no playback restrictions on video DVD-Rs recorded from S-Video in.

***"Hopefully people aren't confused by your +5 mod'd post."***

I still don't see what's confusing about it.

Umm, I'm guessing people who realized it was insightful.

The closest the US gov't has come to regulating the domestic use of encryption was the aborted "clipper chip" fiasco. Traditionally government spooks have relied upon the eggheads at the NSA to be one step ahead of civilian encryption, not secretly leaning on manufacturers to force them to put in back doors.

Riiiiiight. And I'm guessing they take encryption a lot less seriously than paper printed on laserjets. Right? You know, where they are in bed with the inkjet/laserjet printer manufacturers that secretly print out the serial number of the printer, and the date on each page they print.

If you think the government is worried about counterfeiting, but not encryption, I've got a bridge to sell you.

How would the ability to record have anything to do with the dongle's firmware? The dongle just streams the audio data to the PC, where it's recorded.

Not to mention that the right to record broadcasts has been pretty well established in court.

Downside is that if you've got Kazza or other stuff installed and sharing you're nailed...

So go off of public P2P altogether and get on I2P, TOR, or some other anonymous network. Sure, it's slower, but it will probably be too costly from a computing standpoint for the a given adversarial organization to nail you. The more they harass people, the more people will be driven underground to these "anonymous" networks. As of right now, it isn't illegal (in most places) to participate in one of these networks and hopefully it'll stay that way. The recent action on the TOR network in Germany (admittedly by mistake) shows that some nodes may get taken, though.

So, if you absolutely need that new episode of Lost, encrypt your "gray area" data appropriately with Truecrypt (or whatever software will give you plausible deniability) and get on an anonymous network. These anonymous networks are already being used for reasons that are much more important, but the more people that use them, the better off we'll all be. Personally, I recommend I2P.

I will admit that the first thing I do with a CD when I buy a new one is CDex [sourceforge.net] it to high quality MP3 format. Then I put it on the shelf never to be played again. Why? Because that's my master copy that won't ever be scratched or stolen or lost. I may use MP3s to play my music, but I don't distribute or download them illegally. I'm well aware that I am copying them without consent but the only person that ever uses those copies is myself so I'm not afraid of a court case. Not one bit.

Wasn't the last additional material we found on a CD a rootkit?

BZZZZZT Wrong. Commercial Encryption was transferred from the Munitions list to the Commerce List in 1996.

" Following upon the Administration's October 1 announcement, on November 15, 1996, the President issued the Memorandum directing that all encryption items controlled on the U.S. Munitions List, except those specifically designed, developed, configured, adapted, or modified for military applications, be transferred to the Commerce Control List. " http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_export/961230_co mmerce.regs

If you got your hands on Military encryption technology for scrambling your pr0n, then there is prolly a leak at NRL.

Phil Zimmermann. ...All /. readers owe it to themselves to become familiar with US vs. Zimmermann.

--
Slashcode bug # 497457 - unfixed since December 2001 - Go look it up!

There is a lot of information here from the EFF on site blocking by censorware:

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Censorware/

Also some related links from ACLU and other groups.

Transporter_ii

The actual difference, which the judge in this case failed to notice, is that the contents of one's music directory aren't actually the originals. Such files are, literally, _copies_ of the originals, and therefore legitimately subject to the restrictions imposed by Copyright. If I make copies of my CD's and put them on my CD rack, that's perfectly legal, and I can even let you browse my CD rack, but unless I have permission from the copyright holder to make non-personal use copies, I cannot allow you to borrow any of those copied CD's without infringing on copyright, because once I lend them to you, they would literally no longer be just for "personal use".

Please post a quote from the relevant statute that supports your view.

If you make a copy for your personal use, then I come along and make a copy of your copy for my personal use, it is still legal.

The important part is who makes the copy. You cannot make a copy for me (not personal use) but you can lend me your original or copy for listening (no copying involved) and then, I can copy it for my personal use. know that this is playing with semantics but this is how the law works.

Let me quote from the Copyright act: PART VIII - PRIVATE COPYING (emphasis mine):

Copying for Private Use

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

In other words, as long as somebody else makes the copy and you are not getting paid for it, it is legal.

The judge in that case ruled that, in that particular case, sharing the files was not "distribution".
Basically it was a distinction between "push" and "pull" models.

Quoting from the docket:

[26] No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer user via a P2P service.

[27] As far as authorization is concerned, the case of CCH Canada Ltd v. Law Society of Canada, 2004 SCC 13, established that setting up the facilities that allow copying does not amount to authorizing infringement. I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service. In either case the preconditions to copying and infringement are set up but the element of authorization is missing.

[28] The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying. No such evidence was presented by the plaint

Short answer: Instead of quickly downloading western culture, the average Iranian will now be mildly inconvenienced by a cap on bandwidth speeds.

Long answer: What makes this restriction really useful to the Iranian government is that it will help curb attempts to get around their filtering. Countries which censor (such as China) have had flourishing peer-to-peer anonymous darknets spring up as a result of technologies such as Tor and Freenet (link to wp article, as the site appears to be down currently). By capping the bandwidth at 128kbps, it's much more difficult to have faster supernodes on such networks, and fewer Iranians will be willing to dedicate bandwidth to running a p2p web server. Between a combination of web censorship, and an added (though not insurmountable) barrier to darknets, this will help Iran rather effectively cut off its citizens from what the government doesn't want them to see.

The other main consequence is to servers; besides the comical bad ping for Iran counter-strike server which a commenter mentioned earlier, this will affect anyone trying to spread subversive material over their connection; on the other hand, this will cripple anyone trying to serve anything over their connection. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran soon gives exemptions to various research and commercial groups to help stem the latter conquences.

as I understand it truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel. If that is the case, then any statement which is worded so as to express an opinion cannot be considered libel, as the statement (the existance of the opinion itself) must be true; the only one who could claim otherwise, in any event, would be the defendant. AFAIK there are no defamations laws regarding opinions, whether true or false, and the statement itself describes the opinion, not the plaintiff.

Though this page on the EFF site probably explains what I'm saying best of all --

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No -- but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

I recomend you use tor http://tor.eff.org/ combined with Firefox with the torbutton extension https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2275/. It will save you a lot of headache looking for proxies. Ofcourse if you use public computers, this won't be possible...

When they receive the notice they have no legal obligation to take down the material. If they do not take down the material they can be found liable for copyright infringment. If they do take it down they are immune.

IN GENERAL- A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief [...] for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider--

`(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;

`(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

`(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

`(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

`(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

Lemme just start by saying that I love what Spamhaus does. I don't like spam (of the electronic variety), and I'm glad that I receive very little. Now to get flamed...

However, we, in the US, have this little thing called the first amendment. The right to free speech. What Spamhaus (or rather, the email server admin) does is interfere with end users ability to receive free speech. They are inhibiting other peoples ability to practice free speech. Granted, ICANN shouldn't be able to stop Spamhaus from doing their thing for the rest of the world...they should take some sort of action here in the states.

This, in theory, should be up to the end user to OK. Just like you have to enroll in the "no call list" (ie, sending opt out emails), or getting a telezapper type device (ie, a Spamhaus filter). You should be able to opt-in, (or out) of any spam. Granted this is extremely difficult to control due to the nature of the Internet, it should still be there, based on previous precedents set in the telemarketing world. Your phone company doesn't look at lists of telemarketing companies and block them out for all users, so why should your service provider? How many end users know that they aren't receiving all the email intended for them? People need to be made aware of what is sent to them, and be allowed to have control over that information. People can then make an informed decision to completely opt out of emails through the Spamhaus service (ie, buying a telezapper).

So to answer your question, the court is essentially assuring free speech can take place, which the government promised us over 200 years ago. I would recommend taking a gander at the EFFs page on spam for more infos: http://www.eff.org/spam/

India, in most cases only blocks access to the alleged hate-speech sites within the country and they don't go after the site owners and make arrests. On one instance, the US FBI on the other hand even went to the extent of seizing the Rackspace servers of Independent Media Center(IMC) in the UK, on a request from Italian and swiss governments.

http://www.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/111999.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indymedia#.28Alleged. 29_Seizure_of_servers_by_the_FBI
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Indymedia/

October 03, 2006 EFF Sues for Information on Electronic Surveillance Systems

FBI Withholds Records on Tools to Intercept Personal Communications

Washington, D.C. - The FLAG Project at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed its first lawsuit against the Department of Justice Tuesday after the FBI failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records concerning DCS-3000 and Red Hook -- tools the FBI has spent millions of dollars developing for electronic surveillance.

DCS-3000 is an interception system that apparently evolved out of "Carnivore," a controversial surveillance system the FBI used several years ago to monitor online traffic through Internet service providers. One Department of Justice report said DCS-3000 was developed to "intercept personal communication services delivered via emerging digital technologies" and that it was used "as carriers continue to introduce new features and services." According to the same report, Red Hook is a system to "collect voice and data calls and then process and display the intercepted information."

The FLAG Project first filed its FOIA request for information about the surveillance systems on August 11, 2006. The FBI acknowledged receipt of the request, but the agency has not responded within the time limit required by law.

"Recent allegations of domestic spying by the U.S. government already have both lawmakers and the general public up in arms. Americans have a right to know whether the FBI is using new technology to further violate their privacy," said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "The Department of Justice needs to abide by the law and publicly release information about these surveillance tools."

EFF's FLAG Project, launched last month, uses FOIA requests and litigation to expose the government's expanding use of technologies that invade privacy.

"Transparency is critical to the functioning of our democracy, especially when the government seeks to hide activities that affect the rights of citizens," EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel, who directs the FLAG Project. "We have recently seen numerous instances where federal agencies have sought to conceal surveillance activities that raise serious legal issues."

For the full FOIA suit filed against the Department of Justice:
http://www.eff.org/flag/dcs/dcs_complaint.pdf

For more on the FLAG Project:
http://www.eff.org/flag/

October 03, 2006 EFF Sues for Information on Electronic Surveillance Systems

FBI Withholds Records on Tools to Intercept Personal Communications

Washington, D.C. - The FLAG Project at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed its first lawsuit against the Department of Justice Tuesday after the FBI failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records concerning DCS-3000 and Red Hook -- tools the FBI has spent millions of dollars developing for electronic surveillance.

DCS-3000 is an interception system that apparently evolved out of "Carnivore," a controversial surveillance system the FBI used several years ago to monitor online traffic through Internet service providers. One Department of Justice report said DCS-3000 was developed to "intercept personal communication services delivered via emerging digital technologies" and that it was used "as carriers continue to introduce new features and services." According to the same report, Red Hook is a system to "collect voice and data calls and then process and display the intercepted information."

The FLAG Project first filed its FOIA request for information about the surveillance systems on August 11, 2006. The FBI acknowledged receipt of the request, but the agency has not responded within the time limit required by law.

"Recent allegations of domestic spying by the U.S. government already have both lawmakers and the general public up in arms. Americans have a right to know whether the FBI is using new technology to further violate their privacy," said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "The Department of Justice needs to abide by the law and publicly release information about these surveillance tools."

EFF's FLAG Project, launched last month, uses FOIA requests and litigation to expose the government's expanding use of technologies that invade privacy.

"Transparency is critical to the functioning of our democracy, especially when the government seeks to hide activities that affect the rights of citizens," EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel, who directs the FLAG Project. "We have recently seen numerous instances where federal agencies have sought to conceal surveillance activities that raise serious legal issues."

For the full FOIA suit filed against the Department of Justice:
http://www.eff.org/flag/dcs/dcs_complaint.pdf

For more on the FLAG Project:
http://www.eff.org/flag/

Everyone make a donation to the EFF, they have done a lot......

Website

Has anyone verified that? My understanding was that the whole "PlayForSure/Zune" thing was speculated on because MS didn't happen to mention WMV is a list of other supported file formats, but that WMV was the default anyway so didn't need to be explicitely mentioned so the speculation that Zune wouldn't support it was probably not true

Nope.

Stunningly, Zune will not play PlaysForSure content. Ironic, huh?

More here:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004910.php

And direct from Microsoft itself:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/14/the-engadget-in terview-j-allard-microsoft-corporate-vice-presi/

Conversely, Apple has actually been making their DRM more lenient: you can now two-way sync any iPod with any iTunes libraries on computers that are authorized on the same iTunes account (and you can have up to five computers and an unlimited number of iPods, which is how it's always been). Previously, you could have an iPod associated with only one music library; now you can easily keep all libraries in sync across multiple computers and multiple iPods.

Considering that NSA probably have your emails anyway, no need to crack your email account. Just a simple automatic check if your coresspondents have names like 'Bin Laden' :)

Perhaps this will help spark more interest in anonymous web browsing.

Nothing beats a fearmongering president like fearmongering dissent. Welcome to the real new America. Everyone has lost all perspective... Chicken Little rules the day.

(from Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2)The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Some people may try to claim that this isn't really a violation of the constitution because it only applies to non-citizens, but we should note two things: first, the constitution never says that habeas corpus (or any other right, for that matter) only applies to U.S. citizens, and second, that this same administration has made noises about stripping U.S. citizenship from people it considers terrorists. So there is reason to worry that this law could be applied to anyone that the administration takes a disliking to.

To summarize the situation: This is not people simply sitting around wringing their hands because the president wants these powers, or might use them if they were granted. The president already exercised these powers, before he had any legal right to do so, and he has now been granted these same powers. They president has acted like a tyrant and is now in full possession of the powers of tyranny.

Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.

So now we just counter this illegal wiretapping (yes, its still illegal, even though they've passed a law that makes it "legal") with extra strong encryption and Civil Disobedience.

Use TrueCrypt with the AES-Twofish-Serpent algorithm on your PC (Linux, Mac or Windows). If you want to use something simliar on BSD, look into GELI encryption for those partitions.

For phones, you could look into encryption handsets or telephone scramblers. There's this one too, or the Cryptophone GSM Phone Encryption solution. Google around, there's quite a few hundred solutions in this space... stack them together for even more security.

Disclaimer: I don't personally know how strong these algorithms are on these handsets, so use at your own risk.

With VoIP, you could easily layer whatever encryption you want on top of it. Bounce your call through a few foreign routers, run it through Privoxy, Tor and i2p and you should be good to go. Yes, it will incur some latency.. but I'd rather sacrifice speed for security or privacy, wouldn't you? Here is an article on securing VoIP. Worthwhile reading if you're using it or considering it.

Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.

Now its OUR turn.

You take from us, we take back.

the songs play on PlayForSure devices

Amercian Civil Liberties Union
Electronic Frontier Foundation

Donate $10 if you haven't this month. There are people looking out for us, they need MONEY.

if the security researcher (hacker) just reverse-engineered the program then it's just a violation of the license terms and a court will tell you to find him on your own...
if the security researcher broke into microsofts servers, then it's a much bigger deal and a court might give you 150 agents to hunt the hacker...
this has happened before... Apple did exactly this and they got the 150 agents for a violation of the license agreement... that was the first big case for the electronic frontier foundation

But there are lots of things which aren't trivial at all.

What we need is mass media to be on our side, but until there is more of a profit incentive in that, I don't see it happening in the immediate (or distant for that matter) future.

That's why I listen to NPR and give regularly to my local station.

Also, obligatory to this story are the standard links, so people who are lazy don't have to type them in (note, you can open the link in a new window and not interrupt your slashdotting). If you got paid today, why not send $10 to:

Electronic Frontier Foundation
American Civil Liberties Union
Idealist.org - Other non-profits

Remember that as long as you only care about yourself and your recreation, the rest of the world is going to walk over you. You are here to do a job, so..do it.

It seems that the Zune will not be able to play "PlaysForSure" DRM'd music

Since you are impaired in interpreting plain language English, by "unauthorized access," they are referring to getting content you have not licensed (paid for), NOT media shifting content which you have paid for.

Section1201(b)(1) defines such circumvention, as "avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure," and 321 states that its software does not avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or otherwise impair a technological measure, but that it simply uses the authorized key to unlock the encryption. However, while 321's software does use the authorized key to access the DVD, it does not have authority to use this key, as licensed DVD players do, and it therefore avoids and bypasses CSS.

(A) to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
and
(B) a technological measure 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.