Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: eff.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to eff.org.

Comments · 6,386

I personally would like to see a good fair-use cas by falconwolf · 2006-07-26 14:16 · Score: 1 · on MPAA v. Hogan, or Vice Versa?

If I recall right there already has been a fair use case... Here is EFF's webpage on Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at least one of these cases deals with fair use, MGM v. 321 Studios.
Falcon
Wrong protocol by lamber45 · 2006-07-26 12:03 · Score: 1 · on CEO Shawn Hogan Takes on MPAA
My understanding of BitTorrent is that different chunks of a download are routed to and temporarily stored for retransmission on the PCs of a number of individuals who have BitTorrent software running, but with each chunk being encrypted so that an individual has no idea of what's passing through his/her PC. No, each user of BitTorrent knows exactly what files he's downloading or sharing. You're probably getting it miked up with one or all of these other protocols:
- freenet (an anonymous file-publishing system)
- MixMaster (an anonymous e-mail system)
- Tor (an anonymous TCP-socket origination system)
Defining "half"- time? Money? Alphabetical list? by geekotourist · 2006-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1 · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
The EFF is suing AT&T for a trillion dollars: that's one project. The EFF got Betamax upheld in the Supreme Court: that's another project. The EFF writes about DRM and Hollywood plugging the analog hole: that's a third.
I'm thinking that this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of their projects relate to DRM. RFID isn't even on their list of legal cases. Here's the EFF's major topics:
Looks like you disagree with 11% of the list, not 50%: where did the 1/2 come from? Was it that you heard a lecture by Cory Doctorow? Because he does like talking about the DRM, sure.
But if you get a take-down notice, or you get sued because of your blog post, or you want to built technology without Hollywood's permission, who other than the EFF is going to understand both the technological and the legal- even Constitutional- implications? The EFF is innovation insurance.
Defining "half"- time? Money? Alphabetical list? by geekotourist · 2006-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1 · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
The EFF is suing AT&T for a trillion dollars: that's one project. The EFF got Betamax upheld in the Supreme Court: that's another project. The EFF writes about DRM and Hollywood plugging the analog hole: that's a third.
I'm thinking that this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of their projects relate to DRM. RFID isn't even on their list of legal cases. Here's the EFF's major topics:
Looks like you disagree with 11% of the list, not 50%: where did the 1/2 come from? Was it that you heard a lecture by Cory Doctorow? Because he does like talking about the DRM, sure.
But if you get a take-down notice, or you get sued because of your blog post, or you want to built technology without Hollywood's permission, who other than the EFF is going to understand both the technological and the legal- even Constitutional- implications? The EFF is innovation insurance.
Defining "half"- time? Money? Alphabetical list? by geekotourist · 2006-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1 · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
The EFF is suing AT&T for a trillion dollars: that's one project. The EFF got Betamax upheld in the Supreme Court: that's another project. The EFF writes about DRM and Hollywood plugging the analog hole: that's a third.
I'm thinking that this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of their projects relate to DRM. RFID isn't even on their list of legal cases. Here's the EFF's major topics:
Looks like you disagree with 11% of the list, not 50%: where did the 1/2 come from? Was it that you heard a lecture by Cory Doctorow? Because he does like talking about the DRM, sure.
But if you get a take-down notice, or you get sued because of your blog post, or you want to built technology without Hollywood's permission, who other than the EFF is going to understand both the technological and the legal- even Constitutional- implications? The EFF is innovation insurance.
Defining "half"- time? Money? Alphabetical list? by geekotourist · 2006-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1 · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
The EFF is suing AT&T for a trillion dollars: that's one project. The EFF got Betamax upheld in the Supreme Court: that's another project. The EFF writes about DRM and Hollywood plugging the analog hole: that's a third.
I'm thinking that this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of their projects relate to DRM. RFID isn't even on their list of legal cases. Here's the EFF's major topics:
Looks like you disagree with 11% of the list, not 50%: where did the 1/2 come from? Was it that you heard a lecture by Cory Doctorow? Because he does like talking about the DRM, sure.
But if you get a take-down notice, or you get sued because of your blog post, or you want to built technology without Hollywood's permission, who other than the EFF is going to understand both the technological and the legal- even Constitutional- implications? The EFF is innovation insurance.
Defining "half"- time? Money? Alphabetical list? by geekotourist · 2006-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1 · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
The EFF is suing AT&T for a trillion dollars: that's one project. The EFF got Betamax upheld in the Supreme Court: that's another project. The EFF writes about DRM and Hollywood plugging the analog hole: that's a third.
I'm thinking that this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of their projects relate to DRM. RFID isn't even on their list of legal cases. Here's the EFF's major topics:
Looks like you disagree with 11% of the list, not 50%: where did the 1/2 come from? Was it that you heard a lecture by Cory Doctorow? Because he does like talking about the DRM, sure.
But if you get a take-down notice, or you get sued because of your blog post, or you want to built technology without Hollywood's permission, who other than the EFF is going to understand both the technological and the legal- even Constitutional- implications? The EFF is innovation insurance.
Defining "half"- time? Money? Alphabetical list? by geekotourist · 2006-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1 · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
The EFF is suing AT&T for a trillion dollars: that's one project. The EFF got Betamax upheld in the Supreme Court: that's another project. The EFF writes about DRM and Hollywood plugging the analog hole: that's a third.
I'm thinking that this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of their projects relate to DRM. RFID isn't even on their list of legal cases. Here's the EFF's major topics:
Looks like you disagree with 11% of the list, not 50%: where did the 1/2 come from? Was it that you heard a lecture by Cory Doctorow? Because he does like talking about the DRM, sure.
But if you get a take-down notice, or you get sued because of your blog post, or you want to built technology without Hollywood's permission, who other than the EFF is going to understand both the technological and the legal- even Constitutional- implications? The EFF is innovation insurance.
Defining "half"- time? Money? Alphabetical list? by geekotourist · 2006-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1 · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
The EFF is suing AT&T for a trillion dollars: that's one project. The EFF got Betamax upheld in the Supreme Court: that's another project. The EFF writes about DRM and Hollywood plugging the analog hole: that's a third.
I'm thinking that this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of their projects relate to DRM. RFID isn't even on their list of legal cases. Here's the EFF's major topics:
Looks like you disagree with 11% of the list, not 50%: where did the 1/2 come from? Was it that you heard a lecture by Cory Doctorow? Because he does like talking about the DRM, sure.
But if you get a take-down notice, or you get sued because of your blog post, or you want to built technology without Hollywood's permission, who other than the EFF is going to understand both the technological and the legal- even Constitutional- implications? The EFF is innovation insurance.
Defining "half"- time? Money? Alphabetical list? by geekotourist · 2006-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1 · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
The EFF is suing AT&T for a trillion dollars: that's one project. The EFF got Betamax upheld in the Supreme Court: that's another project. The EFF writes about DRM and Hollywood plugging the analog hole: that's a third.
I'm thinking that this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of their projects relate to DRM. RFID isn't even on their list of legal cases. Here's the EFF's major topics:
Looks like you disagree with 11% of the list, not 50%: where did the 1/2 come from? Was it that you heard a lecture by Cory Doctorow? Because he does like talking about the DRM, sure.
But if you get a take-down notice, or you get sued because of your blog post, or you want to built technology without Hollywood's permission, who other than the EFF is going to understand both the technological and the legal- even Constitutional- implications? The EFF is innovation insurance.
Defining "half"- time? Money? Alphabetical list? by geekotourist · 2006-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1 · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
The EFF is suing AT&T for a trillion dollars: that's one project. The EFF got Betamax upheld in the Supreme Court: that's another project. The EFF writes about DRM and Hollywood plugging the analog hole: that's a third.
I'm thinking that this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of their projects relate to DRM. RFID isn't even on their list of legal cases. Here's the EFF's major topics:
Looks like you disagree with 11% of the list, not 50%: where did the 1/2 come from? Was it that you heard a lecture by Cory Doctorow? Because he does like talking about the DRM, sure.
But if you get a take-down notice, or you get sued because of your blog post, or you want to built technology without Hollywood's permission, who other than the EFF is going to understand both the technological and the legal- even Constitutional- implications? The EFF is innovation insurance.
Defining "half"- time? Money? Alphabetical list? by geekotourist · 2006-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1 · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
The EFF is suing AT&T for a trillion dollars: that's one project. The EFF got Betamax upheld in the Supreme Court: that's another project. The EFF writes about DRM and Hollywood plugging the analog hole: that's a third.
I'm thinking that this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of their projects relate to DRM. RFID isn't even on their list of legal cases. Here's the EFF's major topics:
Looks like you disagree with 11% of the list, not 50%: where did the 1/2 come from? Was it that you heard a lecture by Cory Doctorow? Because he does like talking about the DRM, sure.
But if you get a take-down notice, or you get sued because of your blog post, or you want to built technology without Hollywood's permission, who other than the EFF is going to understand both the technological and the legal- even Constitutional- implications? The EFF is innovation insurance.
Defining "half"- time? Money? Alphabetical list? by geekotourist · 2006-07-26 05:31 · Score: 1 · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
The EFF is suing AT&T for a trillion dollars: that's one project. The EFF got Betamax upheld in the Supreme Court: that's another project. The EFF writes about DRM and Hollywood plugging the analog hole: that's a third.
I'm thinking that this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of their projects relate to DRM. RFID isn't even on their list of legal cases. Here's the EFF's major topics:
Looks like you disagree with 11% of the list, not 50%: where did the 1/2 come from? Was it that you heard a lecture by Cory Doctorow? Because he does like talking about the DRM, sure.
But if you get a take-down notice, or you get sued because of your blog post, or you want to built technology without Hollywood's permission, who other than the EFF is going to understand both the technological and the legal- even Constitutional- implications? The EFF is innovation insurance.
Hi friend of digital freedom, by Polarism · 2006-07-25 21:07 · Score: 1 · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed

Hi friend of digital freedom,

Your thoughtful gift today of $25.00 means a world of difference to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and our ability to defend digital freedom.

On behalf of our Board, staff and volunteers, thank you for your contribution and for helping to protect digital freedom. Our friends at MAKE Magazine and Anonymizer.com also appreciate your support! Take advantage of their EFF member exclusives:
- Get a discount on your MAKE subscription with this promotional
code: CMAKE. http://www.makezine.com/subscribe/
- Try Anonymous Surfing with your free 30-day trial! Download the
software here: http://secure.eff.org/anonymizer (Please note that
the software only runs on Windows 2000 and XP.)
Sincerely,
Nicole

Nicole Nguyen
Membership Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
415-436-9333 x120
nicole@eff.org

PS: I will send you an acknowledgment letter and any associated premiums to the mailing address listed below. Your gift is tax deductible as allowed by law. Our tax ID number is 04-3091431. EFF respects the confidentiality of its supporters and we do not lend, rent or sell our lists of donors at any time. No goods or services were provided in consideration of this contribution.
EFF is still going strong. Join and donate by geekotourist · 2006-07-25 14:49 · Score: 5, Informative · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed

The EFF's January 2006 Class Action Lawsuit was the first lawsuit over this, and they're still going strong with their major victory last week.
Slashdot readers, more than just about anyone else, understand why the EFF's work is so important. YRO, right?
Got Encryption?

Like that the Supreme Court upheld Betamax?

Like your Broadcast-flag-free gear?

But most Slashdot members haven't joined the EFF. The EFF is fighting organizations that are thousands of times the size of the EFF, and the EFF is winning- that's the sort of thing to make you think Join the EFF today. Someone has to pay for the EFF, and right now that someone isn't 98% of Slashdot.

Yes, really. Slashdot has members in the high-hundred-thousands or low-millions. The EFF has nowhere near even 1/30th or 1/40th of that many members. 39 of 40 Slashdot members are relying on the donations of that 40th member to keep the EFF going. The 'Foundation' in Electronic Frontier Foundation doesn't mean 'trust fund.' It means 'you can make a tax deductable donation and that'll be helpful.'

Did you like that the Communications Decency Actgot killed?

Remember how quickly Sony got slammed for their rootkit?

Remember how long it took for non-technical people to understand how damaging the rootkit was? That's part of why the EFF is so important- they understand why the technical details matter so that they're ready when you call. But a small non-profit member-based organization depends on money from their members to run.
Disclaimer- I support the EFF and I know many of the people there- the 23 people who make the EFF look like it's 10x the size it is.
EFF is still going strong. Join and donate by geekotourist · 2006-07-25 14:49 · Score: 5, Informative · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed

The EFF's January 2006 Class Action Lawsuit was the first lawsuit over this, and they're still going strong with their major victory last week.
Slashdot readers, more than just about anyone else, understand why the EFF's work is so important. YRO, right?
Got Encryption?

Like that the Supreme Court upheld Betamax?

Like your Broadcast-flag-free gear?

But most Slashdot members haven't joined the EFF. The EFF is fighting organizations that are thousands of times the size of the EFF, and the EFF is winning- that's the sort of thing to make you think Join the EFF today. Someone has to pay for the EFF, and right now that someone isn't 98% of Slashdot.

Yes, really. Slashdot has members in the high-hundred-thousands or low-millions. The EFF has nowhere near even 1/30th or 1/40th of that many members. 39 of 40 Slashdot members are relying on the donations of that 40th member to keep the EFF going. The 'Foundation' in Electronic Frontier Foundation doesn't mean 'trust fund.' It means 'you can make a tax deductable donation and that'll be helpful.'

Did you like that the Communications Decency Actgot killed?

Remember how quickly Sony got slammed for their rootkit?

Remember how long it took for non-technical people to understand how damaging the rootkit was? That's part of why the EFF is so important- they understand why the technical details matter so that they're ready when you call. But a small non-profit member-based organization depends on money from their members to run.
Disclaimer- I support the EFF and I know many of the people there- the 23 people who make the EFF look like it's 10x the size it is.
EFF is still going strong. Join and donate by geekotourist · 2006-07-25 14:49 · Score: 5, Informative · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed

The EFF's January 2006 Class Action Lawsuit was the first lawsuit over this, and they're still going strong with their major victory last week.
Slashdot readers, more than just about anyone else, understand why the EFF's work is so important. YRO, right?
Got Encryption?

Like that the Supreme Court upheld Betamax?

Like your Broadcast-flag-free gear?

But most Slashdot members haven't joined the EFF. The EFF is fighting organizations that are thousands of times the size of the EFF, and the EFF is winning- that's the sort of thing to make you think Join the EFF today. Someone has to pay for the EFF, and right now that someone isn't 98% of Slashdot.

Yes, really. Slashdot has members in the high-hundred-thousands or low-millions. The EFF has nowhere near even 1/30th or 1/40th of that many members. 39 of 40 Slashdot members are relying on the donations of that 40th member to keep the EFF going. The 'Foundation' in Electronic Frontier Foundation doesn't mean 'trust fund.' It means 'you can make a tax deductable donation and that'll be helpful.'

Did you like that the Communications Decency Actgot killed?

Remember how quickly Sony got slammed for their rootkit?

Remember how long it took for non-technical people to understand how damaging the rootkit was? That's part of why the EFF is so important- they understand why the technical details matter so that they're ready when you call. But a small non-profit member-based organization depends on money from their members to run.
Disclaimer- I support the EFF and I know many of the people there- the 23 people who make the EFF look like it's 10x the size it is.
EFF is still going strong. Join and donate by geekotourist · 2006-07-25 14:49 · Score: 5, Informative · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed

The EFF's January 2006 Class Action Lawsuit was the first lawsuit over this, and they're still going strong with their major victory last week.
Slashdot readers, more than just about anyone else, understand why the EFF's work is so important. YRO, right?
Got Encryption?

Like that the Supreme Court upheld Betamax?

Like your Broadcast-flag-free gear?

But most Slashdot members haven't joined the EFF. The EFF is fighting organizations that are thousands of times the size of the EFF, and the EFF is winning- that's the sort of thing to make you think Join the EFF today. Someone has to pay for the EFF, and right now that someone isn't 98% of Slashdot.

Yes, really. Slashdot has members in the high-hundred-thousands or low-millions. The EFF has nowhere near even 1/30th or 1/40th of that many members. 39 of 40 Slashdot members are relying on the donations of that 40th member to keep the EFF going. The 'Foundation' in Electronic Frontier Foundation doesn't mean 'trust fund.' It means 'you can make a tax deductable donation and that'll be helpful.'

Did you like that the Communications Decency Actgot killed?

Remember how quickly Sony got slammed for their rootkit?

Remember how long it took for non-technical people to understand how damaging the rootkit was? That's part of why the EFF is so important- they understand why the technical details matter so that they're ready when you call. But a small non-profit member-based organization depends on money from their members to run.
Disclaimer- I support the EFF and I know many of the people there- the 23 people who make the EFF look like it's 10x the size it is.
EFF is still going strong. Join and donate by geekotourist · 2006-07-25 14:49 · Score: 5, Informative · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed

The EFF's January 2006 Class Action Lawsuit was the first lawsuit over this, and they're still going strong with their major victory last week.
Slashdot readers, more than just about anyone else, understand why the EFF's work is so important. YRO, right?
Got Encryption?

Like that the Supreme Court upheld Betamax?

Like your Broadcast-flag-free gear?

But most Slashdot members haven't joined the EFF. The EFF is fighting organizations that are thousands of times the size of the EFF, and the EFF is winning- that's the sort of thing to make you think Join the EFF today. Someone has to pay for the EFF, and right now that someone isn't 98% of Slashdot.

Yes, really. Slashdot has members in the high-hundred-thousands or low-millions. The EFF has nowhere near even 1/30th or 1/40th of that many members. 39 of 40 Slashdot members are relying on the donations of that 40th member to keep the EFF going. The 'Foundation' in Electronic Frontier Foundation doesn't mean 'trust fund.' It means 'you can make a tax deductable donation and that'll be helpful.'

Did you like that the Communications Decency Actgot killed?

Remember how quickly Sony got slammed for their rootkit?

Remember how long it took for non-technical people to understand how damaging the rootkit was? That's part of why the EFF is so important- they understand why the technical details matter so that they're ready when you call. But a small non-profit member-based organization depends on money from their members to run.
Disclaimer- I support the EFF and I know many of the people there- the 23 people who make the EFF look like it's 10x the size it is.
EFF is still going strong. Join and donate by geekotourist · 2006-07-25 14:49 · Score: 5, Informative · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed

The EFF's January 2006 Class Action Lawsuit was the first lawsuit over this, and they're still going strong with their major victory last week.
Slashdot readers, more than just about anyone else, understand why the EFF's work is so important. YRO, right?
Got Encryption?

Like that the Supreme Court upheld Betamax?

Like your Broadcast-flag-free gear?

But most Slashdot members haven't joined the EFF. The EFF is fighting organizations that are thousands of times the size of the EFF, and the EFF is winning- that's the sort of thing to make you think Join the EFF today. Someone has to pay for the EFF, and right now that someone isn't 98% of Slashdot.

Yes, really. Slashdot has members in the high-hundred-thousands or low-millions. The EFF has nowhere near even 1/30th or 1/40th of that many members. 39 of 40 Slashdot members are relying on the donations of that 40th member to keep the EFF going. The 'Foundation' in Electronic Frontier Foundation doesn't mean 'trust fund.' It means 'you can make a tax deductable donation and that'll be helpful.'

Did you like that the Communications Decency Actgot killed?

Remember how quickly Sony got slammed for their rootkit?

Remember how long it took for non-technical people to understand how damaging the rootkit was? That's part of why the EFF is so important- they understand why the technical details matter so that they're ready when you call. But a small non-profit member-based organization depends on money from their members to run.
Disclaimer- I support the EFF and I know many of the people there- the 23 people who make the EFF look like it's 10x the size it is.
EFF is still going strong. Join and donate by geekotourist · 2006-07-25 14:49 · Score: 5, Informative · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed

The EFF's January 2006 Class Action Lawsuit was the first lawsuit over this, and they're still going strong with their major victory last week.
Slashdot readers, more than just about anyone else, understand why the EFF's work is so important. YRO, right?
Got Encryption?

Like that the Supreme Court upheld Betamax?

Like your Broadcast-flag-free gear?

But most Slashdot members haven't joined the EFF. The EFF is fighting organizations that are thousands of times the size of the EFF, and the EFF is winning- that's the sort of thing to make you think Join the EFF today. Someone has to pay for the EFF, and right now that someone isn't 98% of Slashdot.

Yes, really. Slashdot has members in the high-hundred-thousands or low-millions. The EFF has nowhere near even 1/30th or 1/40th of that many members. 39 of 40 Slashdot members are relying on the donations of that 40th member to keep the EFF going. The 'Foundation' in Electronic Frontier Foundation doesn't mean 'trust fund.' It means 'you can make a tax deductable donation and that'll be helpful.'

Did you like that the Communications Decency Actgot killed?

Remember how quickly Sony got slammed for their rootkit?

Remember how long it took for non-technical people to understand how damaging the rootkit was? That's part of why the EFF is so important- they understand why the technical details matter so that they're ready when you call. But a small non-profit member-based organization depends on money from their members to run.
Disclaimer- I support the EFF and I know many of the people there- the 23 people who make the EFF look like it's 10x the size it is.
EFF is still going strong. Join and donate by geekotourist · 2006-07-25 14:49 · Score: 5, Informative · on Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed

The EFF's January 2006 Class Action Lawsuit was the first lawsuit over this, and they're still going strong with their major victory last week.
Slashdot readers, more than just about anyone else, understand why the EFF's work is so important. YRO, right?
Got Encryption?

Like that the Supreme Court upheld Betamax?

Like your Broadcast-flag-free gear?

But most Slashdot members haven't joined the EFF. The EFF is fighting organizations that are thousands of times the size of the EFF, and the EFF is winning- that's the sort of thing to make you think Join the EFF today. Someone has to pay for the EFF, and right now that someone isn't 98% of Slashdot.

Yes, really. Slashdot has members in the high-hundred-thousands or low-millions. The EFF has nowhere near even 1/30th or 1/40th of that many members. 39 of 40 Slashdot members are relying on the donations of that 40th member to keep the EFF going. The 'Foundation' in Electronic Frontier Foundation doesn't mean 'trust fund.' It means 'you can make a tax deductable donation and that'll be helpful.'

Did you like that the Communications Decency Actgot killed?

Remember how quickly Sony got slammed for their rootkit?

Remember how long it took for non-technical people to understand how damaging the rootkit was? That's part of why the EFF is so important- they understand why the technical details matter so that they're ready when you call. But a small non-profit member-based organization depends on money from their members to run.
Disclaimer- I support the EFF and I know many of the people there- the 23 people who make the EFF look like it's 10x the size it is.
Donations here: by Ahnteis · 2006-07-25 11:05 · Score: 2, Insightful · on CEO Shawn Hogan Takes on MPAA

http://www.eff.org/

That's the request on his blog anyway -- he doesn't need the money, so if you want to donate, send it to eff. They'll be happy for it. :)
Re:There's your answer: by inKubus · 2006-07-21 10:36 · Score: 1 · on President Bush Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe

The problem is that it's against the law in many STATES to forment revolution on the government.

Obviously you can challenge this in court by preemptively suing the government before you attempt the revolt. Might actually be effective, actually. This is probably something the ACLU or EFF would want to tackle. That's why I donate to them (ACLU, EFF, Impeach Bush).

Think about all the money you spend on Starbucks or Coke or organic vegtables or whatever it is you consume. I figure I spend $20 a week on starbucks. Surely I can afford $10/month to assure my personal freedoms. So I give $120 per year to each organization. I know there are plenty of other people on here (slashdot) who have also. If you haven't, just do it. It's fast, and don't be all paranoid about them having your credit card number... you can send cash ;)
Lovely Quotes from the Ruling by abb3w · 2006-07-21 04:35 · Score: 1 · on EFF Case Against AT&T To Go Forward

AFAIK, the government has always gotten "national security" cases such as this thrown out of court, this change represents a very good historical first!

However, as the judge notes:

But no case dismissed because its "very subject matter" was a state secret involved ongoing, widespread violations of individual constitutional rights, as plaintiffs allege here.

Or in other words, even the privilege of "state secrets" has limits, Mr. President. No, wait... not "in other words":

But it is important to note that even the state secrets privilege has its limits. While the court recognizes and respects the executive's constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it. [...] To defer to a blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that duty, particularly because the very subject matter of this litigation has been so publicly aired.

You mean the President can't just lie to the public and tell us to shut up?

[I]f the government has not been truthful, the state secrets privilege should not serve as a shield for its false public statements.

I think I like this judge. The procedural stuff in part III of the ruling (link FTA) is also quite clever: he's proposed appointing an expert to help him determine whether keeping something secret is really important, or just White House horseshit. Now as long as Specter's bill doesn't get through and force tranfer of this to the FISA court, this has some interesting possibilities.

Mind you, it still doesn't look good for the EFF. The judge emphasizes that nothing in his ruling should be taken to mean that they have a case, nor that they will get access to classified materials. This just means that the EFF deserves a chance to show they have one, from the non-classified materials... with perhaps the Judge telling the government that trying to classify this or that is idiotic. And if the EFF can't pull together a case, the judge's ruling explicitly allows for either the Government or AT&T from renewing the motions to get the case laughed out of court.

But it's a start.
EFF Website - A link to do your part by Apparition29 · 2006-07-21 04:17 · Score: 1 · on EFF Calls RIAA Tactics 'Reign of Terror'

This is missing in the article, if you want more information about EFF check out their website at:
http://www.eff.org
Or to sign a petition to stop some of the RIAA madness goto:
http://www.eff.org/share/petition/
EFF Website - A link to do your part by Apparition29 · 2006-07-21 04:17 · Score: 1 · on EFF Calls RIAA Tactics 'Reign of Terror'

This is missing in the article, if you want more information about EFF check out their website at:
http://www.eff.org
Or to sign a petition to stop some of the RIAA madness goto:
http://www.eff.org/share/petition/
Re:not in the USA :-) by hometoast · 2006-07-18 05:07 · Score: 1 · on UK Hackers Face Antisocial Behaviour Orders

FTFA: This law would not be consitutional in the US.

Yes, much like Spector's proposed bill.
Do something about it by arrrrg · 2006-07-15 17:42 · Score: 2, Informative · on The Fine Print On Wiretapping Review

I'm surpised nobody has posted an EFF link yet. Here's the summary & link from BoingBoing:

Cindy Cohn, EFF's stellar Legal Director, sez, "Senator Specter and the Bush Administration today announced that they have reached a deal to send all of the cases concerning the illegal NSA wiretapping (including EFF's) to the secret FISA court. This is being spun in the press as a big concession by the Administration but in truth it's an abomination -- the FISA court acts in secret and doesn't even hear argument from both sides. This bill will likely move fast, so we only have a limited window to try to stop it. Here's s direct link to EFF's action center to let you write to the relevant Congressional committees."

It takes less than 30 seconds to send an e-mail to your congresscritter, and it's really the least you can do if you really care about this issue.
Re:FUD by WerewolfOfVulcan · 2006-07-15 12:07 · Score: 3, Informative · on The Fine Print On Wiretapping Review

original bill

changes as of 6.14

The bill is S. 2453. Working title is National Security Surveillance Act of 2006.

There are a couple of other bills worth noting. One is S. 2455 (Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006), sponsored by Senators DeWine and Graham. The other is S . 3001 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006) sponsored by Senators Specter and Feinstein.

I've been following these bills since their introduction. I knew that one or more of them would make it to the table before November. If any of them pass, Bush will have gotten away with wiping his ass with the Constitution yet again
Re:FUD by WerewolfOfVulcan · 2006-07-15 12:07 · Score: 3, Informative · on The Fine Print On Wiretapping Review

original bill

changes as of 6.14

The bill is S. 2453. Working title is National Security Surveillance Act of 2006.

There are a couple of other bills worth noting. One is S. 2455 (Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006), sponsored by Senators DeWine and Graham. The other is S . 3001 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006) sponsored by Senators Specter and Feinstein.

I've been following these bills since their introduction. I knew that one or more of them would make it to the table before November. If any of them pass, Bush will have gotten away with wiping his ass with the Constitution yet again
Re:Wouldn't it depend on perspective? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-14 04:41 · Score: 0 · on Skype Protocol Has Been Cracked

In the US however both the district and the appeal courts ruled that EULA may forbid reverse engineering. Just read this page: http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/
Re:MPAA et al not happy with Clearplay, either by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2006-07-11 19:42 · Score: 1 · on ' Naughty Bits' Decision Not So Nice

The studios purport to be every bit as unhappy with Clearplay as the re-recording service providers that were the subject of this lawsuit. They are currently suing Clearplay in the case Huntsman v. Soderbergh/a? which is pending.

That's odd. The Family Movie Act of 2005 seems to be pretty clear about legalizing Clearplay's business model. The law was passed as a "compromise" in that the studios got a bunch of new draconian punishments for copyright violators but in exchange they had to accept the bible-thumpers using "censor tracks."
Here's the revelant bit of the law:

Title II: Exemption from Infringement for Skipping Audio and Video Content In Motion Pictures - Family Movie Act of 2005 - (Sec. 202) Creates an exemption from copyright infringement for: (1) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing from an authorized copy of the motion picture; or (2) the creation or provision of technology that enables such editing, is designed and marketed for such use, creates no fixed copy of the altered version, and makes no changes, deletions or additions to commercial advertisements or promotional announcements that would otherwise be performed or displayed.

Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to protect from liability for trademark infringement: (1) persons who engage in the above-referenced conduct; and (2) manufacturers of technology that enables such editing if notice is provided that the performance of the movie is altered from the director's or copyright holder's intended performance.

I'd argue that a creative interpretation of the above would even cover what cleanflicks does, but that reading is more than a little contentious.
Re:All your trolls are belong to U.S. by eosp · 2006-07-11 14:22 · Score: 1 · on Patriot Act Bypasses Facebook Privacy

Lawsuit? Not for me.
Re:MPAA et al not happy with Clearplay, either by Whanana · 2006-07-11 14:04 · Score: 1 · on ' Naughty Bits' Decision Not So Nice

The EFF has come down on this for Clearplay. I don't take whatever the EFF does as gospel, but their claim the "Public Has Right to Skip or Mute Movie Scenes" seems accurate to me.

The CleanFlicks lawsuit was properly decided according to the law. Whether the law is right or not is a seperate question. But if this other lawsuit goes against ClearPlay, I could see Tivo going the way of the world too. If you can't have something skipping certain parts of a movie for you, I could easily see an analagous argument about Tivo skipping commercials illegal too.
MPAA et al not happy with Clearplay, either by Thagg · 2006-07-11 10:23 · Score: 4, Interesting · on ' Naughty Bits' Decision Not So Nice

At the end of this feedback summary, the Clearplay solution is mooted.

The studios purport to be every bit as unhappy with Clearplay as the re-recording service providers that were the subject of this lawsuit. They are currently suing Clearplay in the case Huntsman v. Soderbergh/a? which is pending.

You can read all about it at the linked EFF site.

Basically, the arguments are almost all exactly the same -- except that the copyright issue is obviously different as there is no copy being sold. With Clearplay, you buy or rent the regular disk, and the Clearplay-supplied DVD player and service skips the naughty bits. The directors filing the lawsuit complain that their names and trademarks are applied to a "created" movie that is not their original movie -- and they are attempting to use trademark as well as copyright law to fight Clearplay.

From the pace that this case has been proceeding through the courts, it's going to be a very long time before it is resolved.

Thad Beier
Re:Reading things like this by crystalattice · 2006-07-08 13:06 · Score: 2, Interesting · on FBI Planning New Net-Tapping Push

I've been using Tor from the EFF for several weeks now. To use the most common argument against itself, if I'm doing nothing wrong then I should have nothing to hide, right? However, if I'm doing nothing wrong, then there should be no reason to snoop on me and no one should be concerned if I prefer to use onion servers for my personal Internet use.

Additionally, what incentive do I have to make law enforcement's job easier? If they're only going after the bad guys, then they should already have enough legal force to get the job done. Just because I prefer to remain anonymous and encrypt my data doesn't mean I'm a criminal; it just means I like my privacy.
Re:Not just electronic by BoldAndBusted · 2006-07-08 10:46 · Score: 1 · on A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Still, by concentrating on technological issues, the EFF calls attention away from the fact that the rights being fought over in court today concern not just internet wiretapping and music downloads, but are in fact a facet of the overall struggle for more basic rights like the right to free speech and the right to privacy.

So, join both the ACLU and the EFF. Problem solved. As far as your Internationlist Revolutionary approach, well, let's just say that I care more about shoring up and restoring the rights that are under threat in my own country *right now*, rather than sinking more cash into causes that may or may not benefit others elsewhere. The EFF, ACLU and the Center for Democracy and Technology are just the ticket for me right now.
Fluffy reporting by Aaarrrggghhh · 2006-07-08 03:07 · Score: 1 · on A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Since the 21st century is only about 6 years old, isn't a statement like that just a little premature?

He was making a statement with vision and foresight, not making a TOP 10 list for cases that have already taken place. Look here, www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ for AT&T case details. While you read, consider what the next century will look like if EFF loses this and future cases like it.

Sure, we've already seen things like eschelon and carnivore, but this is by far the boldest power grab by the US government to formally & non-apologetically establish itself as Big Brother over US citizens. This case, in concert with the related ACLU case, has the *potential* to be the precedent that stops this government from using tech companies to become Big Brother for the next century. I'd say that would make it one of the most important privacy & free speech cases of the 21st century. Now they need to win and they're going to need help to fight this goliath of a case.
Fluffy reporting by Aaarrrggghhh · 2006-07-08 03:07 · Score: 1 · on A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Since the 21st century is only about 6 years old, isn't a statement like that just a little premature?

He was making a statement with vision and foresight, not making a TOP 10 list for cases that have already taken place. Look here, www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ for AT&T case details. While you read, consider what the next century will look like if EFF loses this and future cases like it.

Sure, we've already seen things like eschelon and carnivore, but this is by far the boldest power grab by the US government to formally & non-apologetically establish itself as Big Brother over US citizens. This case, in concert with the related ACLU case, has the *potential* to be the precedent that stops this government from using tech companies to become Big Brother for the next century. I'd say that would make it one of the most important privacy & free speech cases of the 21st century. Now they need to win and they're going to need help to fight this goliath of a case.
Re:Thanks, may just halve support by ntk · 2006-07-07 18:49 · Score: 1 · on A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Our areas of work don't really distract resources from each other. We have separate expert lawyers to cover privacy, free speech, evoting, international and IP issues. The AT&T case is also supported by several external teams working pro bono.

(In fact, I'd say the AT&T class action incidentally helps highlight other issues because of the wider coverage we receive as a result. This AP story is a good example: journalists come to write about the AT&T case, and stay to hear about the wider concerns. It's a lot easier to brief journalists on the subtler aspects of government-mandated DRM when they already know about work in contexts they understand.)

What the media covers also doesn't represent the balance of what we do. Our allocation of resources isn't related to the number of headlines you see. For instance, the press concentrates on call records, but a lot of our work on this case is concerned - and started - from concerns about illegal surveillance of AT&T Worldnet users.

The precedent of dragnet warrantless surveillance is increasingly dangerous in a environment where more of your life takes place over the wires. While the press boils the story down to telephony because that's the part that's familiar, we approach it from the other side. As voice and IP merge, the last thing we want is for the unjust precedent to be set on the voice side, and then spread into the even more intrusive world of net surveillance.

Sadly, that's an everpresent trend in much of the privacy work we do -- from the spread of CALEA into VoIP and net services by the FCC, to the seamless move from call record data to calls for mobile telephone geodata, to the recent announcement that mail attachments will be checked at ISPs against a hash database of suspect content. By standing against those threats at strategic points, we can defend the core networks - and civil liberties - better. Others see telephony datamining as the payoff to the story, we worry that it is just the beginning.

(Incidentally, as a supporter, you should know that you can mail us any time with your worries or suggestions - what you say does get heard, and I can address what you want a lot more specifically there.)
Re:Thanks, may just halve support by ntk · 2006-07-07 18:49 · Score: 1 · on A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Our areas of work don't really distract resources from each other. We have separate expert lawyers to cover privacy, free speech, evoting, international and IP issues. The AT&T case is also supported by several external teams working pro bono.

(In fact, I'd say the AT&T class action incidentally helps highlight other issues because of the wider coverage we receive as a result. This AP story is a good example: journalists come to write about the AT&T case, and stay to hear about the wider concerns. It's a lot easier to brief journalists on the subtler aspects of government-mandated DRM when they already know about work in contexts they understand.)

What the media covers also doesn't represent the balance of what we do. Our allocation of resources isn't related to the number of headlines you see. For instance, the press concentrates on call records, but a lot of our work on this case is concerned - and started - from concerns about illegal surveillance of AT&T Worldnet users.

The precedent of dragnet warrantless surveillance is increasingly dangerous in a environment where more of your life takes place over the wires. While the press boils the story down to telephony because that's the part that's familiar, we approach it from the other side. As voice and IP merge, the last thing we want is for the unjust precedent to be set on the voice side, and then spread into the even more intrusive world of net surveillance.

Sadly, that's an everpresent trend in much of the privacy work we do -- from the spread of CALEA into VoIP and net services by the FCC, to the seamless move from call record data to calls for mobile telephone geodata, to the recent announcement that mail attachments will be checked at ISPs against a hash database of suspect content. By standing against those threats at strategic points, we can defend the core networks - and civil liberties - better. Others see telephony datamining as the payoff to the story, we worry that it is just the beginning.

(Incidentally, as a supporter, you should know that you can mail us any time with your worries or suggestions - what you say does get heard, and I can address what you want a lot more specifically there.)
Re:Thanks, may just halve support by ntk · 2006-07-07 18:49 · Score: 1 · on A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Our areas of work don't really distract resources from each other. We have separate expert lawyers to cover privacy, free speech, evoting, international and IP issues. The AT&T case is also supported by several external teams working pro bono.

(In fact, I'd say the AT&T class action incidentally helps highlight other issues because of the wider coverage we receive as a result. This AP story is a good example: journalists come to write about the AT&T case, and stay to hear about the wider concerns. It's a lot easier to brief journalists on the subtler aspects of government-mandated DRM when they already know about work in contexts they understand.)

What the media covers also doesn't represent the balance of what we do. Our allocation of resources isn't related to the number of headlines you see. For instance, the press concentrates on call records, but a lot of our work on this case is concerned - and started - from concerns about illegal surveillance of AT&T Worldnet users.

The precedent of dragnet warrantless surveillance is increasingly dangerous in a environment where more of your life takes place over the wires. While the press boils the story down to telephony because that's the part that's familiar, we approach it from the other side. As voice and IP merge, the last thing we want is for the unjust precedent to be set on the voice side, and then spread into the even more intrusive world of net surveillance.

Sadly, that's an everpresent trend in much of the privacy work we do -- from the spread of CALEA into VoIP and net services by the FCC, to the seamless move from call record data to calls for mobile telephone geodata, to the recent announcement that mail attachments will be checked at ISPs against a hash database of suspect content. By standing against those threats at strategic points, we can defend the core networks - and civil liberties - better. Others see telephony datamining as the payoff to the story, we worry that it is just the beginning.

(Incidentally, as a supporter, you should know that you can mail us any time with your worries or suggestions - what you say does get heard, and I can address what you want a lot more specifically there.)
Re:Thanks, may just halve support by ntk · 2006-07-07 18:49 · Score: 1 · on A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Our areas of work don't really distract resources from each other. We have separate expert lawyers to cover privacy, free speech, evoting, international and IP issues. The AT&T case is also supported by several external teams working pro bono.

(In fact, I'd say the AT&T class action incidentally helps highlight other issues because of the wider coverage we receive as a result. This AP story is a good example: journalists come to write about the AT&T case, and stay to hear about the wider concerns. It's a lot easier to brief journalists on the subtler aspects of government-mandated DRM when they already know about work in contexts they understand.)

What the media covers also doesn't represent the balance of what we do. Our allocation of resources isn't related to the number of headlines you see. For instance, the press concentrates on call records, but a lot of our work on this case is concerned - and started - from concerns about illegal surveillance of AT&T Worldnet users.

The precedent of dragnet warrantless surveillance is increasingly dangerous in a environment where more of your life takes place over the wires. While the press boils the story down to telephony because that's the part that's familiar, we approach it from the other side. As voice and IP merge, the last thing we want is for the unjust precedent to be set on the voice side, and then spread into the even more intrusive world of net surveillance.

Sadly, that's an everpresent trend in much of the privacy work we do -- from the spread of CALEA into VoIP and net services by the FCC, to the seamless move from call record data to calls for mobile telephone geodata, to the recent announcement that mail attachments will be checked at ISPs against a hash database of suspect content. By standing against those threats at strategic points, we can defend the core networks - and civil liberties - better. Others see telephony datamining as the payoff to the story, we worry that it is just the beginning.

(Incidentally, as a supporter, you should know that you can mail us any time with your worries or suggestions - what you say does get heard, and I can address what you want a lot more specifically there.)
Re:Thanks, may just halve support by ntk · 2006-07-07 18:49 · Score: 1 · on A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Our areas of work don't really distract resources from each other. We have separate expert lawyers to cover privacy, free speech, evoting, international and IP issues. The AT&T case is also supported by several external teams working pro bono.

(In fact, I'd say the AT&T class action incidentally helps highlight other issues because of the wider coverage we receive as a result. This AP story is a good example: journalists come to write about the AT&T case, and stay to hear about the wider concerns. It's a lot easier to brief journalists on the subtler aspects of government-mandated DRM when they already know about work in contexts they understand.)

What the media covers also doesn't represent the balance of what we do. Our allocation of resources isn't related to the number of headlines you see. For instance, the press concentrates on call records, but a lot of our work on this case is concerned - and started - from concerns about illegal surveillance of AT&T Worldnet users.

The precedent of dragnet warrantless surveillance is increasingly dangerous in a environment where more of your life takes place over the wires. While the press boils the story down to telephony because that's the part that's familiar, we approach it from the other side. As voice and IP merge, the last thing we want is for the unjust precedent to be set on the voice side, and then spread into the even more intrusive world of net surveillance.

Sadly, that's an everpresent trend in much of the privacy work we do -- from the spread of CALEA into VoIP and net services by the FCC, to the seamless move from call record data to calls for mobile telephone geodata, to the recent announcement that mail attachments will be checked at ISPs against a hash database of suspect content. By standing against those threats at strategic points, we can defend the core networks - and civil liberties - better. Others see telephony datamining as the payoff to the story, we worry that it is just the beginning.

(Incidentally, as a supporter, you should know that you can mail us any time with your worries or suggestions - what you say does get heard, and I can address what you want a lot more specifically there.)
Re:Thanks, may just halve support by ntk · 2006-07-07 18:49 · Score: 1 · on A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Our areas of work don't really distract resources from each other. We have separate expert lawyers to cover privacy, free speech, evoting, international and IP issues. The AT&T case is also supported by several external teams working pro bono.

(In fact, I'd say the AT&T class action incidentally helps highlight other issues because of the wider coverage we receive as a result. This AP story is a good example: journalists come to write about the AT&T case, and stay to hear about the wider concerns. It's a lot easier to brief journalists on the subtler aspects of government-mandated DRM when they already know about work in contexts they understand.)

What the media covers also doesn't represent the balance of what we do. Our allocation of resources isn't related to the number of headlines you see. For instance, the press concentrates on call records, but a lot of our work on this case is concerned - and started - from concerns about illegal surveillance of AT&T Worldnet users.

The precedent of dragnet warrantless surveillance is increasingly dangerous in a environment where more of your life takes place over the wires. While the press boils the story down to telephony because that's the part that's familiar, we approach it from the other side. As voice and IP merge, the last thing we want is for the unjust precedent to be set on the voice side, and then spread into the even more intrusive world of net surveillance.

Sadly, that's an everpresent trend in much of the privacy work we do -- from the spread of CALEA into VoIP and net services by the FCC, to the seamless move from call record data to calls for mobile telephone geodata, to the recent announcement that mail attachments will be checked at ISPs against a hash database of suspect content. By standing against those threats at strategic points, we can defend the core networks - and civil liberties - better. Others see telephony datamining as the payoff to the story, we worry that it is just the beginning.

(Incidentally, as a supporter, you should know that you can mail us any time with your worries or suggestions - what you say does get heard, and I can address what you want a lot more specifically there.)
Re:Thanks, may just halve support by ntk · 2006-07-07 18:49 · Score: 1 · on A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Our areas of work don't really distract resources from each other. We have separate expert lawyers to cover privacy, free speech, evoting, international and IP issues. The AT&T case is also supported by several external teams working pro bono.

(In fact, I'd say the AT&T class action incidentally helps highlight other issues because of the wider coverage we receive as a result. This AP story is a good example: journalists come to write about the AT&T case, and stay to hear about the wider concerns. It's a lot easier to brief journalists on the subtler aspects of government-mandated DRM when they already know about work in contexts they understand.)

What the media covers also doesn't represent the balance of what we do. Our allocation of resources isn't related to the number of headlines you see. For instance, the press concentrates on call records, but a lot of our work on this case is concerned - and started - from concerns about illegal surveillance of AT&T Worldnet users.

The precedent of dragnet warrantless surveillance is increasingly dangerous in a environment where more of your life takes place over the wires. While the press boils the story down to telephony because that's the part that's familiar, we approach it from the other side. As voice and IP merge, the last thing we want is for the unjust precedent to be set on the voice side, and then spread into the even more intrusive world of net surveillance.

Sadly, that's an everpresent trend in much of the privacy work we do -- from the spread of CALEA into VoIP and net services by the FCC, to the seamless move from call record data to calls for mobile telephone geodata, to the recent announcement that mail attachments will be checked at ISPs against a hash database of suspect content. By standing against those threats at strategic points, we can defend the core networks - and civil liberties - better. Others see telephony datamining as the payoff to the story, we worry that it is just the beginning.

(Incidentally, as a supporter, you should know that you can mail us any time with your worries or suggestions - what you say does get heard, and I can address what you want a lot more specifically there.)
Re:Smear Story. by twitter · 2006-07-07 15:20 · Score: 1 · on A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
In less than 10 minutes one of the many pathetic people who like to heckle Twitter snears:
by any chance did you happen to notice this was an AP wire piece?
I would hardly call M$NBC anything close to original. Lack of originality won't excuse them from running such a nasty little smear piece. Nor does the story's origin refute any of the other things I said about it.

Dedazo, M$ is paying you too much for such shoddy work. Could you at least post something remotely useful between such obvious trolls as:
- M$ suck up, quickly defeated and bullshit, he uses Macs too.
- Talking the usual shit.
- More hate for slashdot Why are you here?
- Reality Master?
- Thinks Windows Users are Stupid and that Linux worms are "on the way", just like Vista. Yeah, he must work for M$.
Woops, you can post something useful now and then. Thanks for suggesting people give money to the EFF, that's a good idea, complete with link worth reproducing. Of course, the other 6 of the seven posts I read from you were nothing but vile and mindless insult and your ratio of useful to insult is low.
Re:DMCA by rpdillon · 2006-07-07 14:43 · Score: 1 · on Work Around for New DVD Format Protections

Fair use absolutely is a defense for DMCA violations. This is a factual dispute and can be easily resolved by reading the actual law. In section 1201(c) of the DMCA text:

"(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."

Not sure they can be much more clear than that.
"then all is well" was a reference not to the law, but rather my determination that "all is well" when the average consumer doesn't have to violate the DMCA to circumvent the protection for (supposedly) fair use. If a normal user, in the course of exercising fair use, was made a criminal by this law (which can happen, say, with DeCSS), then all would not be well. It was just a statement of my opinion on the subject, not a legal determination.
Re:Go EFF! by dedazo · 2006-07-07 12:14 · Score: 1 · on A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

They have a lot of battles to fight. "We" (as in those of us who care about these issues that are mostly not visible to the general public) need to support them. There are many ways to do it. Even buying a t-shirt helps, but I'm sure they'd appreciate a monthly donation even more.