Slashdot Mirror

This sounds like it is a rewriting proxy - you request a page, say www.yahoo.com by using the URL:

https://psiphonat.myfriend.com/http://www.yahoo.co m/

and then proxy re-writes all URLs in the document to be of that same form so that clicks will automagically go through the psiphon proxy.

How is this better than Tor: http://tor.eff.org/

I would tell you, but my corporate firewall won't allow access to that website.

or just an HTTP Proxy that supports CONNECT for SSL traffic?

Because people may be forced to use a proxy just to get outside of the firewall. You can't chain proxies, at least not with normal web browsers.

How is this better than Tor: http://tor.eff.org/ or just an HTTP Proxy that supports CONNECT for SSL traffic?

Likewise, once you've lawfully obtained a copy of MacOS-X, Apple loses all rights to dictate how that copy may be used.

You never lawfully obtain a copy of Mac OS X to do with whatever you wish.

You only lawfully enter into a license agreement with Apple, the terms of which require you to run Mac OS X on Apple hardware.

Just in case any readers are unaware of this fact, it is perfectly legal for you to agree to a license that removes rights you would otherwise have. You may have the right to do anything you like with certain products in the absence of a license agreement governing your purchase. But it is perfectly legal for a vendor to sell a product by means of a license agreement which removes rights you would otherwise have had. When you agree to the license, you are bound by it, including those portions that restrict or remove rights you would otherwise have had in the absence of the license agreement. If you don't like the license agreement you are free not to purchase the product, or to return it for a refund. You are not legally entitled to unilaterally rewrite the terms of the license agreement to suit your desires.

You may dislike the fact that you never lawfully obtained a copy of Mac OS X to do with whatever you wish, but there is no ambiguity about your situation as far as the law is concerned. A recent federal court ruling has upheld click-through EULAs. As far as US law is concerned, they are fully valid license agreements, including terms that restrict or remove rights which purchasers normally have in the absence of such agreements. Click through EULAs were specifically ruled to waive fair use rights. (see page 23 of the linked decision)

Google Adresses Privacy Concerns With New '30-Day' Policy

"Following stern warnings by the EFF and other consumer groups over Google's new 'Search Across Computers' feature, the company has responded by implementing new policies aimed at protecting their users' privacy. The steps taken by the search giant include encrypting all the user's information and restricting its access to just a handful of employees. And if that's not enough to allay privacy concerns, Google has promised to delete all data within 30 days. In an industry where more extensive data usually leads to higher profits, this tradeoff made by the company appears to be placing customer priorities over shareholder priorities." Looks like someone's trying to earn back their "Do no evil" motto.

This world is going so ass bent sideways and the hackers are the new revolutionaries.... HOLY FUCK every scifi book has just become a reality.

man, from beijing, trying to access http://www.freebsd.org/ I got "The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading." from firefox...

go and have tor (http://tor.eff.org/) and privoxy (http://www.privoxy.org/) set up, that's the perfect tools combination for web surfing...

and if you have gentoo linux (http://www.gentoo.org/ just type:

# emerge tor privoxy

to install and play with them :)

What I don't understand is why an alternative 'internet' has been setup yet, using encrypted/disguised routes to the western world in a P2P fashion. Assuming that by "alternative" you mean an alternative method and not a whole alternative internet (different websites, etc.), Tor is pretty much what you describe (although not 100% p2p - it is more a seperate client-server(s) method).

"Whether or not you believe the NSA can decrypt a 1024-bit key in any reasonable timescale"

Putting aside that government may already have quantum computing.... you assume they need to do brute force attacks.

Much software is likely embedded with back doors and/or reporting mechanisms. For example Say you run java or windows and it checks for updates... no question the government has access to that data. Alone it is useless but when you write agents that cross reference with other forms of data (emails, DNS requests, protocol traffic, etc...) you can quickly shape a profile of what CPU went online and where. Further cross referencing can probably give you a decent idea of who it actually is.

If all of a sudden they notice encrypted email coming from a particular box all they need then is software that automatically gets the keys from your box using one of probably many firmware/software back doors. Given that apparently AT&T has obviously been in bed with the government-- it seems to follos that Intel, Cisco, AMD, Google all are given "suggestions" as well. It seems very likely back doors and low key software daemons are created for "export only" given that it would arouse suspicion internally within a country.

One place I think where people miss the boat is because this they because this is incredibly logistically- that it's impossible. If you you have resources of tens of billions of dollars annually, thirty thousand dedicated employees to work with, and access to some of the best minds in the world--- all these things are definitely achievable. I imagine I'm only describing a fraction of their capabilities.

There is no law in place stopping government from doing this since FISA apparently is being bypassed. You even have a former NSA analyst whose come forward and said to NYT that he knows first hand that capacity is there.

So why isn't the NSA busting down doors everywhere?

The answer is simple. If your adversary knows you are doing it, they'll change the technology creating new barriers for you.. I highly recommend you go through declassified Enigma case files (at the actual NSA website). They plainly have used these tactics on adversaries in the past... successfully.

If you are the average computer user, the trouble the government has is not actually getting your data. it's filtering though massive stores of it to figure out who they need to worry about and when they should act on that information.(as it gives themselves away)

Further reading:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18028837-3819 8,00.html
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_ Surveillance_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware
http://www.eff.org/

Good luck finding one. There's a reason why searches are free, and search companies are most often tied with advertising. If you don't want to be logged, use Tor

Odds are the overlap is probably on purpose. Here's a sample:

• C++ vs (MS) C++
• C++ vs (MS) C#
• RMS vs (MS) RMS
• Vista vs (MS) Vista
• ... and so on ...

Someone familiar with the special terms MS uses could probably dig up plenty more.

Want to mess with the search results? Simply put links on some of your pages to the non-MS definition.

"Rather than telling people not to use any of these products and convincing a few people with privacy paranoia they should be concentrating on improving the protections that information will have."

EFF is concentrating on this: they've announced a major lawsuit against AT&T for participating in the government's illegal wiretapping program.

But the surveillance powers of the state have expanded many times through the Bush Administration (and Clinton was hardly a friend of privacy, for that matter). So while it's important to put corporations on notice that their participation in surveillance might land them in hot water, it's likewise important to let the public know that corporations are often left with no choice, and required to surveil them secretly (e.g., because of FISA warrants, or through CALEA wiretapping).

EFF isn't pursuing a monotonic "stop sharing your information" strategy. It's approaching this on many prongs: lobbying the government to sunset the PATRIOT Act, asking the Supreme Court to strike it down, suing companies that participate in surveillance, publishing best-practices documents for privacy-friendly server-logging, and warning the public about the potential for privacy ruptures arising from law and practice.

It's unfair to characterize EFF as merely wagging its fingers at the public. The organization is pursuing this on every possible front.

(Disclosure: I am a former EFF employee)

Actually, from reading the order (google_nevada_order.pdf) It would seem the use of the robots.txt merely had relevance wrt implied licence, and that google would most likely have won even if it had deliberatly ignored the robots.txt - specifically this paragraph:

To demonstrate copyright infringement, "the plaintiff must show ownership of the copyright and copying by the defendant." Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 817 (9th Cir. 2003); see also 17 U.S.C. 501. A plaintiff must also show volitional conduct on the part of the defendant in order to support a finding of direct copyright infringement. See Religious Tech. Ctr v. Netcom On-Line Commc'n Servs., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, 1369-70 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (direct infringement requires a volitional act by defendant; automated copying by machines occasioned by others not sufficient); CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 555 (4th Cir. 2004) ("Agreeing with the analysis in Netcom, we hold that the automatic copying, storage, and transmission of copyrighted materials, when instigated by others, does not render an ISP strictly liable for copyright infringement under 501 and 106 of the Copyright Act."). (emphasis mine). Note that in this they are not considering the initial caching of the file (that is covered later in the 'fair use' ruling), but the system providing copies of the cache to users of the system in an automated manner on the users request.

Of course, the most simple reason why the robots.txt quote you provided does not prove your point is faulty logic: Just because the court has ruled that an explicit allow in a robots.txt makes it ok, doesn't mean they have ruled that an explicit ban in a robots.txt makes it illegal to cache, although I grant that it raises the chances (specifically this is an example of reversing implication for you logic fans: A->B does not mean that A -> B ( it does mean that B -> A, but that is a different story :) )

Nothing can stop Google from loggin everything you do over their servers. What you can do is make it pointless:
- use Gaim with
- OTR for all your chat, routing it via
- TOR by TORifying Gaim

Furthermore you better create a fresh account for this, using an invite that you got through a non-traceable route (for instance using Firefox with the Switchproxy plugin according to Tor's guidelines.) Don't forget to install Privoxy for this and configure your browser correctly or your DNS requests are still going over open channels. For more information you can refer to the documentation on the TOR website.

Yes you miss out on the new coolness, yes you have to have alternative channels to verify fingerprints to really be certain there's no man-in-the-middle and yes I'm really paranoid.

Questions?

Nothing can stop Google from loggin everything you do over their servers. What you can do is make it pointless:
- use Gaim with
- OTR for all your chat, routing it via
- TOR by TORifying Gaim

Furthermore you better create a fresh account for this, using an invite that you got through a non-traceable route (for instance using Firefox with the Switchproxy plugin according to Tor's guidelines.) Don't forget to install Privoxy for this and configure your browser correctly or your DNS requests are still going over open channels. For more information you can refer to the documentation on the TOR website.

Yes you miss out on the new coolness, yes you have to have alternative channels to verify fingerprints to really be certain there's no man-in-the-middle and yes I'm really paranoid.

Questions?

"Basically the famous Playboy article said that the feds deliverred UNSOLICITED kiddie porn to peoples homes and if they did not IMMEDIATELY report it to the feds (as if they open their mail that hour or minute) the gestapo feds kicked down your door and arrested the duped person"

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/AABBS_Thomases_Memp his/

He ran a BBS that was legal in California. A prosectutor in Tennessee sent him child porn by post in order to use Federal law to have him arrested (for receiving child porn through the post). He was then arrested and taken to Tennessee, charged with selling porn to Tennessee residents and the child porn charge dropped.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T Tuesday, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications. http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_01.php#00436 9

What is it going to take to stop this type of activity?

• Tor: Onion-based routing that acts as a proxy layer between the client computer and the Tor network. http://tor.eff.org/

• I2P: Also known as the Invisible Internet Project. The network is regarded as a message based system. http://www.i2p.net/

• FreeNet: is a distributed information and storage retrieval system designed to address the concerns of privacy. Freenet is designed to be anonymous and totally peer to peer. http://freenetproject.org/

• GNUnet: is a P2P network that can support many different forms of peer-to-peer applications. http://gnunet.org/

There are other programs and if you do not want your "private details" known then you would be wise to use them. In addition, anyone who thinks their private data that is held by organisations and government departments is safe whether there is a "Data Protection Act" or not then they should think twice for example the "National Security Agency eavesdropping on Americans incident". This is not the first time nor will it be the last time that such incidents will occur. Without being anonymous, we can never have true freedom of speech.

"You can't encrypt the source and destination IP and port numbers, which is what I believe they would be limiting here.

Yes, you can.

I got nothing from it. I left the job before the patents were filed, worked on the applications gratis, and was screwed out of the application, grant and production fees by a crappy contract. (They never even paid the $1, so I suppose that those patents belong to me due to violation of the "contract" - though it wouldn't be worth trying to invalidate it at this point.)

Software patents were brand-new at the time. I did the work before the EFF was founded; I thought it was neat, an opportunity to make some money (that I was screwed out of) and get some accomplishment to my name.

I wish I had known better.

Wondering if you could get around this by using encrypted proxies...something like the Tor type technology?

Well, they can still see to which server the packets are going, so they can tell if you're on ebay or "Joe's auction site", and prioritise accordingly.
Tor is very good at hiding your communications.

As spooky as "deep packet inspection" might sound, there's not much that can be done if all of the traffic is encrypted since there would be no way to differentiate between email, P2P, and normal web surfing. Yet another reason to start using Tor... aside from the whole wiretapping mess.

While they may sometimes pick the wrong battle, they also pick many that they can win. Besides, the goal of the EFF isn't only to choose issues that they can win, but to take on issues that affect people's privacy (regardless of the chances of winning). I would rather they continue doing what they're doing (which makes more people aware of the issues even if the EFF loses), than burying their heads in the sand because they might lose.

The more people who know about these issues, the better chance we have of electing officials that are cognizant of people's privacy.

Someone, please, stop the EFF before it's too late. I know they might think of these things as a "why not, let's give it a shot and see what happens" deal, but these trials and the EFF's continued losses are going to be a serious impact on ALL of our futures. I know, I get a chuckle too after seeing the latest story about how they've been laughed out of court, again, and see how riled up people get over it, but this needs to stop now. Our rights, and our (US citizens) futures may depend on it.

I think you should review the Electronic Frontier Foundation's history of accomplishments before making such an over-generalized (and incorrect) statement. They're trying the herculean task of protecting OUR civil liberties at THEIR expense; I think they deserve better than baseless criticism.

I read the Register article where this meme ("EFF is hurting our civil liberties by losing cases") started, and it needs to die. Frankly, I think the lawyers at EFF know a hell of a lot more about winning cases than some hack from The Register, and there's plenty of evidence to prove it.

In any case, if really have some brilliant and constructive idea about how the EFF could win more cases, I'm sure they'd love to hear about it. They have contact information on their website. Knock yourself out.

(Side note: it's amazing how much a reputation can be tarnished by one sensationalized "article".)

Someone, please, stop the EFF before it's too late. I know they might think of these things as a "why not, let's give it a shot and see what happens" deal, but these trials and the EFF's continued losses are going to be a serious impact on ALL of our futures. I know, I get a chuckle too after seeing the latest story about how they've been laughed out of court, again, and see how riled up people get over it, but this needs to stop now. Our rights, and our (US citizens) futures may depend on it.

I think you should review the Electronic Frontier Foundation's history of accomplishments before making such an over-generalized (and incorrect) statement. They're trying the herculean task of protecting OUR civil liberties at THEIR expense; I think they deserve better than baseless criticism.

I read the Register article where this meme ("EFF is hurting our civil liberties by losing cases") started, and it needs to die. Frankly, I think the lawyers at EFF know a hell of a lot more about winning cases than some hack from The Register, and there's plenty of evidence to prove it.

In any case, if really have some brilliant and constructive idea about how the EFF could win more cases, I'm sure they'd love to hear about it. They have contact information on their website. Knock yourself out.

(Side note: it's amazing how much a reputation can be tarnished by one sensationalized "article".)

EFF Legal Victories

http://www.eff.org/legal/victories/

That clinches it... I have thought about contributing before, but this clinches it. I'm going to join.

How about directly linking to the article, rather than bouncing through a portal full of ads?

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

Seems like BoingBoing.com is trolling for hits with several recent articles. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, but I'd wish the Slashdot editors to prefer primary content to secondary sources being framed within ad bars on all sides....

The text of the EFF lawsuit requests damages of $100 per day for each day the violation occurred or $10,000 (whichever is greater) be paid to each class member. Sure beats getting a coupon for $10 off our next purchase of a bill of rights.

Seth

The campaign comes as a pending U.S. court case pits Agence France Presse against Google. AFP sued the company last year, alleging that Google News carries its photos, news headlines and stories without permission.

Cache the latest news on Google.

La France, toujours dérangée avec le logiciel des USA.

I thought the courts did decide: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004344.php

"A district court in Nevada has ruled that the Google Cache is a fair use."

Or does every industry want to file a separate suit asking the court to decide whether caching that industry's content is fair or not?

>I think the cd levy thing is true in Canada, but I've never heard about it in the US before. Can someone provide a source?

The US has it too. "Data" CDs don't have the tax. "Music" CDs do. The difference is one bit in the header, and a few bucks at checkout time.

The name of the law taxing music CDs (and DAT tapes, etc) is AHRA - Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, an amendment to the U.S. federal Copyright Act of 1976. It's often called the "DAT tax", but it applies to music CD-Rs too.

http://drmwatch.webopedia.com/TERM/A/AHRA.html

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth

http://www.eff.org/cafe/cafe_case_analysis.html

The EFF calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing.
It has many similarities to what is described in the article, and I think it is a solution that is best for everyone. Lawrence Lessig, in Free Culture (a great, freely downloadable book on related subjects), calls it a chimera. It is wrong to rob the artists, but it is also wrong for the RIAA to treat their fans as criminals. The solution is in the middle, and I think the collective licensing idea is it.

The EFF calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing.
It has many similarities to what is described in the article, and I think it is a solution that is best for everyone. Lawrence Lessig, in Free Culture (a great, freely downloadable book on related subjects), calls it a chimera. It is wrong to rob the artists, but it is also wrong for the RIAA to treat their fans as criminals. The solution is in the middle, and I think the collective licensing idea is it.

Another solution is to use TOR. It's a bit flaky when you want to download big files, but it does work beautifully.

Aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with your rights online:
It helps to know who Gilmore is. A few examples: He created the alt. hierarchy, back before Canter & Seigel brought down usenet. He cofounded EFF.

The EFF would disagree with you, oh and so would the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court has upheld anonymity throughout history, give or take. It's a subset of free speech. That's not to say that you can fly anonymous, but you can certainly speak you mind in anonymity if you wish.

The driving controversy in the case was not necessarily the ID requirement but that the regulations requiring ID are technically illegal under FAA regulations that require all regulations to be publically available. The ID requirement is secret. A secret law in a free country. Now that should give you pause.

"Bad lawyers for the defendants. (There was obviously a lack of professionalism)"

Obviously? You were able to glean from the 15-word writeup that the defendant's lawyers were unprofessional? Perhaps the fellows really were sharing all those songs with Kazaa or whatever? It's interesting that a common sentiment on Slashdot is "There are millions and millions of filesharers! You can't stop us!" and then when the occasional unlucky few out of the millions and millions get caught, a common assumption is that it must be a misunderstanding.

You apparently assume that filesharing is not a "person's" right upon purchase. You are entitled to your opinion. Many people disagree with your opinion. I was able to "glean" from the 15-word write up because my father is a copyright lawyer and we discuss these cases and agree that most people have little, or improper defence counsel.

"Most lawyers in both the U.S. and Europe have little, if no understanding of the copyright system. For example in the U.S. alone the copyright laws have been amended so many times that only a handful of lawyers even understand what the law "says", let alone is interpreted as."

"Don't put thousands of copyrighted works in your share directory if you don't have the right to do so" is straightforward enough.

I disagree. You are assuming an understanding of copyright. You are assuming that placing songs which you have purchased in a share directory is infringment of copyright. You are entitled to your opinion.

"The judges in these cases generally don't have a lot of precedents to refer to."

Judges have been hearing civil and criminal copyright cases since before our grandparents were born.

As new technologies emerge, interpretation and protection of copyrights evolves. What constitutes digital protections and digital copyright infringment is still under lots of argument (see http://www.eff.org/)

"The world is undecided currently on what to do with the Internet in a legal sense of rights and fair use.

The fact that some people think that putting thousands of copyrighted files in your share directory without permission is morally acceptable makes little difference here. This is why we have laws: to protect society against human nature.

Apparently you believe special interest/lobbying groups such as the R.I.A.A. and European equivalents are here to protect society against human nature. Perhaps people have the right to share what they purchase with their friends, but once again you are entitled to your own opinion.

Yes sure - but FISA does not control activities that occur *outside* the USA. it is only concerned with activities inside the country, pertaining to foreign intelligence. See this: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/f isa_faq.html "FISA does not regulate the use of electronic surveillance outside of the United States. For instance, electronic surveillance of electronic communications like e-mail is only governed by 1801(f)(4) if the surveillance device is installed "in the United States." When e-mail sent by a U.S. person to a foreign person is intercepted outside the United States, that interception does not meet this definition."

TVC Alert Research News, a free weekday news bulletin, reports on industry events and Web-based resources for library and legal professionals.

Google Cache Does Not Infringe on Copyright

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesVie w/sid/12594

(26 Jan) The federal district court in Nevada ruled that Google does not violate copyright law when it caches (creates a copy of) Web pages. An attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) opined that the ruling should help Google in its dispute with publishers over the book scanning project.

SEE: Ruling in Blake v. Google
EFF (copy of court filing), 19 January 2006
http://www.eff.org/IP/blake_v_google/google_nevada _order.pdf

Sony seems to think so.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004145.php

Beautiful point about google playing dumb.

I think a censored, searchable internet is a much better tool to bring an oppressive government down than a censored, non-searchable internet.

Google isn't the only one with a gun against its head here. The fact that the chinese government allows an internet at all shows it also has a gun against its head. It has no choice but to continue to allow its economy to grow, and attempting to shut down or stop the growth of China's access to the internet would directly injure its economy.

One the one hand, the chinese government has to restrict the dicsussion of its crimes against its own citizens or risk open revolt, on the other it has to allow information to be exchanged between its citizens over the internet if education and the economy are to continue to expand or face a worsening poverty and as a result, open revolt.

The chinese government is between a rock and a hard place. It has guns pointed at it from two directions.

Google is advancing the day when open dicsussion of the chinese government's crimes will take place, and the chinese governemnt has no choice but to let them.

I wonder, as a technical point, what is to stop a chinese citizen with access to the internet from their home linux computer from using an internet anonymizer like http://tor.eff.org? Or from setting up an encrypted VPN to a computer in the U.S. and browsing the web from there?

If a volunteer core of Americans set up a tor like network with ever changing IP addresses, how would the government be able to track it?

`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

"`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

Heh. When I saw my IP address, I immediately thought, "WTF??? That ain't my IP." Then remembered, I'm running TOR on this box.

As I understand it, the high quality of recordings on Betamax caused worry with the content creators that infringement would run rampant. In turn, content creators boycotted Beta to try to keep the format from gaining ground. The poor quality of VHS, it's degradation over time, and it's limited dubbing ability made it safe from the industry's wrath.

Porn wasn't the main driving factor, it was that few works (porn or not) were released on Betamax. That hurt the reputation of the format and made it less desirable, especially since this was all pretty new to everyone and only a few people were concerned with the improved quality. It seems to me that porn is just the driving factor behind media-related rumors. "Porn, and Al Gore, invented the Internet.", "Without Porn we'd all be watching movies on reel to reel", etc..

However, in response to this horrific proposal, the EFF has launched an action site where you can easily email your Senator and remind them that "users' rights zealots" pay their taxes just like everyone else. This is especially important for residents of "Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Massachussetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, or West Virginia." There are only days left, so drop a mail to your Senator! It won't take a minute, and could help sway some opinions. There's even a pre-typed form letter available (with a typo in paragraph 3), for those of you in a big hurry. I hate to bypass the Slashdot editorial process, but I think that the situation warrants it!

However, in response to this horrific proposal, the EFF has launched an action site where you can easily email your Senator and remind them that "users' rights zealots" pay their taxes just like everyone else. This is especially important for residents of "Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Massachussetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, or West Virginia." There are only days left, so drop a mail to your Senator! It won't take a minute, and could help sway some opinions. There's even a pre-typed form letter available (with a typo in paragraph 3), for those of you in a big hurry. I hate to bypass the Slashdot editorial process, but I think that the situation warrants it!

Your best bets are to keep an eye on these sites

http://www.ffii.org/ (especially)
http://www.fsf.org/
http://www.eff.org/

They usually have links where you can join them and help them in any way they need it.

Finally, a website that succeeded in influencing US politics!

Steve Jackson Games

EFF's SJG Archive

SJG's Opinion of the whole thing

In short, the Secret Service knocks over a game publisher (micro-TSR-style games, such as Illuminati) and attempts to prove that D&D'ers taught David Lightman how to use a Shlitz pulltab to hack into the 911 system. Courts decide Secret Service was completely unjustified, award court fees to SJG. The legal team/computer activists that coalesced around the issue became the EFF.