Slashdot Mirror

I have a Tor onion router/proxy available at 64.95.182.163:8118 which will let you get to the site. Feel free to use it. The Tor network is still somewhat slow, but it works.

Just for the telus customers out there who wish to access the site. (from the Voices For Change website) TELUS customers can pass this proxy URL to TWU members they know who uses TELUS as their ISP: http://vfc.proxy.pfak.org/ also there is always tor i cant think of a better thing for tor that situations like this http://tor.eff.org/

If everyone was using Tor (http://tor.eff.org/ this would all be a mute point.

Tor for all you tinfoil hat types. M$ will never get through that.

If you want to hide your identity online, just use Tor

The Tor project has a FAQ about abuse, from the perspective of Tor server operators and other folks on the internet. Of particular interest are:

• Tor is banned from the IRC network I want to use
• I want to ban the Tor network from my service

Also of interest on the main Tor FAQ is:

• You should hide the list of Tor servers, so people can block the exits.

Basically, Tor goes through some effort in order to be easy to block, by making sure that you can easily get a list of exactly the Tor nodes that allow connections to your servers. If you don't think people who want privacy belong on your service, you don't need to support them; it's your service after all. (Some people have already written RBL-like tools, but I haven't seen any that I like so far; all the ones I've seen list all Tor servers, even the ones that do not permit outgoing connections and so cannot deliver unwanted connections.)

On the other hand, if you do think that privacy is a useful thing, there are ways to allow anonymous users without allowing unlimited abuse. See the first link above.

The Tor project has a FAQ about abuse, from the perspective of Tor server operators and other folks on the internet. Of particular interest are:

• Tor is banned from the IRC network I want to use
• I want to ban the Tor network from my service

Also of interest on the main Tor FAQ is:

• You should hide the list of Tor servers, so people can block the exits.

Basically, Tor goes through some effort in order to be easy to block, by making sure that you can easily get a list of exactly the Tor nodes that allow connections to your servers. If you don't think people who want privacy belong on your service, you don't need to support them; it's your service after all. (Some people have already written RBL-like tools, but I haven't seen any that I like so far; all the ones I've seen list all Tor servers, even the ones that do not permit outgoing connections and so cannot deliver unwanted connections.)

On the other hand, if you do think that privacy is a useful thing, there are ways to allow anonymous users without allowing unlimited abuse. See the first link above.

How these guys complain about piracy. Man, are you kidding? They have enough money to take care of their business, write lawsuites against piracy, and still pay actors/actress/musicians millions of dollars to be wierd. I think they are doing just fine. Do you think if they can fight piracy and win, they will reduce prices? Hehehe. For a lot of education, try this http://www.eff.org/

Copyright protection is dangerous. You are ignorant if you can't recognize the potential for abuse. There is a link at the bottom that will help you tremendously, and probably change your mind. While I do agree with you about pirated videos or music (because I don't really care that much about them anyways, and 20 dollars doesn't hurt) I don't agree with Hollywood or the government being able to put hardware restrictions and regulations in my computer which is what WILL happen. Just as much as you have no right to be in my computer, neither does the government. What you will find is this new 'anti piracy' czar will simply find that stripping computers of their usefullness will be the best resort. That will leave YOU wondering what that dialogue box means when it says, "Looking up authorization." when you want to play your own home movies. Software makers will then also be able to patent not just code (which is fine) but ideas and use. What does that mean? Suppose a big company makes a nifty widget on your computer, but some kid finds a better way of doing it and has written his own code. If he tries to market it, BAM, copyright infringement. This is BIG BUSINESS all the way. http://www.eff.org/

By listening to the people it is happening to. Or do you think they'll disappear, never to be heard from again?

PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.

The ACLU's legal challenge argues that the amended law violates the First and Fourth Amendments because it does not impose adequate safeguards on the FBI's authority to force disclosure of sensitive and constitutionally protected information. The lawsuit also challenges the constitutionality of the statute's gag provision, which prohibits anyone who receives an NSL from disclosing even the mere fact that the FBI has sought information. Because of the gag provision, the ACLU was forced to file the case under seal; it was three weeks before the ACLU could announce that it had challenged the law. The government continues to insist that the gag provision prohibits the ISP plaintiff from disclosing its name.

OK, then call it a legitimate replacement.
Considering the copy protection, I think that BnetD has enough legitimate use to justify its existence, similar to the Betamax decision of the Supreme Court. The BnetD case is not over, btw. See
http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/

EFF Action page

Cookies don't track which sites you go to.

What world are you living in? Did you read...

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/eff_privacy_top_12.html

"However, some companies that manage online banner advertising are, in essence, cookie sharing rings. They can track which pages you load, which ads you click on, etc., and share this information with all of their client Web sites (who may number in the hundreds, even thousands.) Some examples of these cookie sharing rings are DoubleClick, AdCast and LinkExchange. For a demonstration of how they work, see: http://privacy.net/track/"

A DRM chip is going to be mandatory - unless it already is. The existing digital receivers for Linux will not be able to pick up content after some (currently unspecified) future date. Do you have any links or cites that you can give to back yourself up on this? The Broadcast Flag didn't make it through the courts - that was supposed to take effect July 1. It didn't.

So, what you're saying is that there is DRM that isn't mentioned in TFA (which has nothing to do with television and is all about online content) and isn't the broadcast flag. I would love to see anything *concrete* that you can give me, because you're hinting about things I've never heard of, and I pay attention to this corner of the industry.

The National Weather Service Website?

ummm... Will weather.gov still be open to the public if Congress gets around to redefining the National Weather Service's duties?

You don't get it. This is NOT about the DRM. Go ahead, build any DRM system you like. Use any and all the DRM you like. All fine.

The problem here is the broken DMCA which says that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people face PRISON. This guy violated DMCA (a)(1)(A) in circumventing the DRM. He broke the law. The software he used violated the DMCA 1201 (b)(1)(A,B, and C), and the people who supplied that software can go to prison for five years.

The solution is the DMCRA which merely says that INNOCENT and NONINFRINGING people shall not go to prison.

That is why I included the link to the DMCRA when I submitted this story. That is why I included the link to the EFF page to request your representative co-sponsor the DMCRA.

I ask you, do you support the DMCRA and keeping innocent noninfringing people out of prison? Will you ask your Represenative to co-sponsor the DMCRA? Or are you going to try to argue that innocent noninfringing people should be imprisoned?

-

Yes, he did. Have a look:

Under the DMCA it is a felony to (1) circumvent a technical measure such as an encryption lock that copyright owners use to control access to their works or prevent copying of their works, (2) make or distribute a tool that circumvents access controls, or (3) make or distribute a tool that bypasses other technical measures used by copyright owners to protect rights in copyrighted works. 17 USC 1201, 1204.

He used a software circumvention tool to gain access to locked media files for which he does not hold the copyright. We have his confession. This is an open and shut case. Why has he not been pursued by law enforcement? Further, he linked to the program that allowed him to do this. Linking to circumvention devices was ruled illegal in Universal v. Reimerdes. The decision was upheld on appeal. In short, I believe that's two felony counts under the DMCA. He has since removed the link and destroyed the evidence of his crime:

So for now, I'm deleting the files and the program and will inquire of folks who know more about the legal aspects.

I'm not entirely certain of the seriousness of this crime, but, given his actions, he is a serious threat to our 'Intellectual Property' based society. He should be dealt with swiftly, yet this happened almost a month ago. He is still out there roaming the internet! What good are laws if they aren't enforced? As upright citizens of this great nation, we should DEMAND justice. This criminal is loose out there somewhere and needs to be imprisoned before he hurts any other intellectual property holders. Please! Won't someone think of the intellectual property holders!?

" But censoring the intarweb was sooooo 90s, and it didn't succeed, so now they're going after video games."

Oh, they are very much still trying to censor the Interweb.

Considering that Cory is employed as the tech evangelist for The EFF in Europe, and is currently leading their campaign to block the broadcast flag for DRM in hi-def TV, you might want to re-think your idea that he's anti-DRM purely for pose value.

DRM

The worst technology idea since the electrified nipple-clamp is "Digital Rights Management," a suite of voodoo products that are supposed to control what you do with information after you lawfully acquire it. When you buy a DVD abroad and can't watch it at home because it's from the wrong "region," that's DRM. When you buy a CD and it won't rip on your computer, that's DRM. When you buy an iTune and you can't loan it to a friend, that's DRM.

DRM doesn't work. Every file ever released with DRM locks on it is currently available for free download on the Internet. You don't need any special skills to break DRM these days: you just have to know how to search Google for the name of the work you're seeking.

No customer wants DRM. No one woke up this morning and said, "Damn, I wish there was a way to do less with my books, movies and music."

DRM can't control copying, but it can control competition. Apple can threaten to sue Real for making Realmedia players for the iPod on the grounds that Real had to break Apple DRM to accomplish this. The cartel that runs licensing for DVDs can block every new feature in DVDs in order to preserve its cushy business model (why is it that all you can do with a DVD you bought ten years ago is watch it, exactly what you could do with it then -- when you can take a CD you bought a decade ago and turn it into a ringtone, an MP3, karaoke, a mashup, or a file that you send to a friend?).

DRM is used to silence and even jail researchers who expose its flaws, thanks to laws like the US DMCA and Europe's EUCD.

In case there's any doubt: I hate DRM. There is no DRM on this book. None of the books you get from this site have DRM on them. If you get a DRMed ebook, I urge you to break the locks off it and convert it to something sensible like a text file.

If you want to read more about DRM, here's a talk I gave to Microsoft on the subject:

and here's a paper I wrote for the International Telecommunications Union about DRM and the developing world:

Use tor: http://tor.eff.org/

i dont really understand this issue too much. but isn't it currently illegal to create free software designed to work with commercial products? http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/ so any modding that goes on, and is distributed, valve is allowing. valve doesnt make it easy for modding of hl2? im not surprised, they release the junky stuff like counter strike as a platform for independent modders to go ape on. why not, instead, pool these communities to create your own games? i know that valve physics and graphics engine are kinda the reason everyone flocks around their stuff. i have a bootleg copy of hl2, that i did not buy btw, and it is pretty amazing, for a while anyway. but its not soo great that it couldnt be competed with by a group of determined modders. think about all those independent valve modders that could be creating their own stuff. organize that and you'll make a million dollars.

you'll find that currently the only way to go above 480p on them is to use a dvi or hdmi

DVI is not encrypted, is it?

...you'll find that currently the only way to go above 480p on them is to use a dvi or hdmi output with hdcp.

We have a Motorola HD cable DVR connected to a Sony HD TV using a DVI (DVR) to HDMI (TV) cable that doesn't pass the DRM signal. The only digital input the TV has is the HDMI input. The digital signal is visibly cleaner and sharper at 1080i than using Component video cables, but there are rare glitches. Occasionally the picture will get out of sync and you see two torn noisy SD images on the screen. You can fix that by simply changing channels and coming back. That gets the 1s and 0s in sync again.

Outside of that the DVR/TV connect is wont to have other head glitches once in while. During one of those the TV displayed a blue box over 2/3 of the screen with the message along the lines of "DEVICE NOT AUTHORIZED for digital connection. Please switch to analog inputs." Power cycles all around cleared that nonsense.

This what we have to look forward to - TVs that will decide if your other devices are authorized to be seen. Support the EFF to stop this madness...or vote with your wallet. Are you ready to pass on watching movies or other HQ content when the day comes soon that all devices work like this?

section 217 is one of the applicable sections.

EFF has a decent PATRIOT Act analysis. See especially heading 'cheif concerns' 1a.

Thomas has a listing of most of the USA PATRIOT Act, though a few things are missing. Notably, section 217 linked above.

Intellectual property law ideally should strike a balance between rewarding producers of intellectual property and allowing society to benefit from innovation. Through the efforts of lobbyists, the system has become skewed to benefit technological incumbents, at the expense of the public good.

While a market based means of rewarding producers of intellectual property is essential, its primary goal must be to maximize benefit to society. Intellectual property protection comes with a cost. Protection is an artificial legal monopoly. It is an economic fact that monopolies are anticompetitive, restrict the functioning of the free market, and result in higher costs to consumers and lost opportunity for businesses.

The 20 year duration of a "utility" patent is an eternity in the world of technology. The video cassette, for example, ran its entire course from invention to obsolescence in about 20 years. In software, this cycle is more like 5 years. The 20 year period is entirely inappropriate for software.

The United States granted patentability to software and business methods. The result has been the granting of absurd patents, such as the "one-click" patent awarded to Amazon. There are numerous examples of equally absurd patents for software that are as obvious to a software engineer as the "one-click" idea is obvious to anyone who's ever used a mouse. Billions have been wasted on meritless lawsuits like the SCO lawsuit against IBM. An entire industry of "patent terrorists" has evolved which produce nothing but IP lawsuits. Clearly this is not furthering innovation.

Sadly, the US congress is so controlled by corporate lobbyists that the plain and simple best interest of the public loses out to the narrow, but well financed interests of intellectual property holders. It's nice to see that the EU parliament is not quite so corrupted, yet.

I refer you to Stanford professor Lawrence Lessig and Berkeley professor Stephen M. Maurer for more information on this issue.

http://www.lessig.org/
http://violet.berkeley.edu/~gspp/people/affiliates /maurer.htm

For those so inclined, consider supporting the EFF:

http://www.eff.org/

If I were to use Tor and Privoxy together like I normally do for browsing (works great), will I be anonymous as I download torrents with Opera if I have my proxy configuration set up correctly? Being a privacy advocate, this is rather exciting for me. I have heard using Tor with Azureus overloads the servers making them less useful. I wonder if the Opera imbedded bittorrent will be better...

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but wtf?! What are these? http://www.eff.org/legal/victories/

When supporting the EFF in words, how about with funding? There is theSummit 2005, on Thursday July 28, 2005 in Las Vegas...

At the end of Black Hat and the beginning of DEFCON this year is theSummit 2005 - bringing together DEFCON & Black Hat speakers from past/present, as well as well known names in the computer security world. We all come together in a small, private venue for the evening summit to meet and discuss the important topics and socialize.

Note that there will be no more than 200 tickets sold (including featured guests), and all proceeds go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation [http://www.eff.org/ with the sponsor covering event overhead.

theSummit is our gathering of BlackHat / DefCon speakers and big thinkers in the Information Security realm. Anyone interested in supporting the EFF, are highly encouraged to attend; meet with fellow Information security professionals, and talk with big thinkers from the Information security world in a more private and informal setting. Too many times people want to ask questions, or have ideas that cannot make it to the big thinkers. This is either because of time conflicts or they are nervous to come up and talk. This event plans to pull out the stops, and allow the free form of conversation to flow.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation [http://www.eff.org/ is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect our digital rights.

Where: Ice House Lounge, 650 S. Main Street, Las Vegas, Nevada
When: Thursday July 28, 2005, 9:00PM - 12:00AM
Tickets: $30 (pre-sale) $40 (at the door, if available) All Ages welcomed!

For more information, and to purchase tickets for the event:
http://www.dc702summit.org/home/

Event is sponsored by the Hackajar Foundation, and by the members of DEFCON 702.

We all hope to see you there!

(as posted in the Livejournal DEFCON community [http://www.livejournal.com/community/defcon_defco n/323.html ])

When supporting the EFF in words, how about with funding? There is theSummit 2005, on Thursday July 28, 2005 in Las Vegas...

At the end of Black Hat and the beginning of DEFCON this year is theSummit 2005 - bringing together DEFCON & Black Hat speakers from past/present, as well as well known names in the computer security world. We all come together in a small, private venue for the evening summit to meet and discuss the important topics and socialize.

Note that there will be no more than 200 tickets sold (including featured guests), and all proceeds go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation [http://www.eff.org/ with the sponsor covering event overhead.

theSummit is our gathering of BlackHat / DefCon speakers and big thinkers in the Information Security realm. Anyone interested in supporting the EFF, are highly encouraged to attend; meet with fellow Information security professionals, and talk with big thinkers from the Information security world in a more private and informal setting. Too many times people want to ask questions, or have ideas that cannot make it to the big thinkers. This is either because of time conflicts or they are nervous to come up and talk. This event plans to pull out the stops, and allow the free form of conversation to flow.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation [http://www.eff.org/ is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect our digital rights.

Where: Ice House Lounge, 650 S. Main Street, Las Vegas, Nevada
When: Thursday July 28, 2005, 9:00PM - 12:00AM
Tickets: $30 (pre-sale) $40 (at the door, if available) All Ages welcomed!

For more information, and to purchase tickets for the event:
http://www.dc702summit.org/home/

Event is sponsored by the Hackajar Foundation, and by the members of DEFCON 702.

We all hope to see you there!

(as posted in the Livejournal DEFCON community [http://www.livejournal.com/community/defcon_defco n/323.html ])

Second: EFF legal victories since its founding - from the Steve Jackson Games Secret Service raid to the Diebold memos. Has EFF won every case? No. Few advocacy groups do. But you don't get to throw around statements like "[a]ll their cases have failed miserably" without some facts to back you up. You don't have them.

You could also read more of their lies here http://www.eff.org/legal/victories/

or http://tor.eff.org.../

It doesnt have huge amounts of bw right now, but it could have in the future

When I went to update the BIOS in my Toshiba Satellite, which doesn't even come with a floppy drive, I discovered that since sometime in 2002, Toshiba started supplying bootable .iso images with BIOS updates. So, a quick CD-RW burn later (with the Satellite's DVD/CD-RW drive), I was booting off the CD, and updating BIOS and the CPU's microcode...

I've yet to try it with my desktop system, but that's a 1999-vintage Tyan.

(OT: for the love of christ, WTF can't logged-in users post through tor?!)

I didn't buy Warcraft III, or anything else by Blizzard, as a result of Blizzard's stupid actions.

jh

No argument from me, but it is already legal to litigate developers of machines which skip ads out of business. EFF summary on Newmark (Craig of Craig's List), et al. v. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. et al.

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/key_quote s.php

I've been trying to keep my cynicism under control while reading the opinion. But frankly the proposed tests for "inducement" are ludicrous, circumstantial, and horrifying to network software developers. Check out these gems:

1. "Grokster's name is apparently derived from Napster". So does a defendent need a four letter match to be guilty, or is three enough? Would they be innocent if they named it "Furry Bunny P2P"? "Retspan P2P"?

2. "It advertised its OpenNap program to Napster users". Meaning it's partial inducement to bootstrap new p2p protocols via earlier networks
with a high amount of alleged infringing activity. Will Bram need to USPS bulk mail CDs for his next protocol?

3. "Neither company attempted to develop filtering tools". OK this is where it gets extremely bad. Unless p2p developers build ineffective countermeasures ON THEIR DIME to appease entertainment companies, they are criminally liable. Will p2p apps have to blacklist game theory papers because they contain a popular rapper's name in their text? No, but the alternative is now probable liability during lawsuit.

4. "the more the software is used, the more ads are sent out ... their enterprise turns on high-volume use, which the record shows is infringing." Almost every commercial enterprise derives value from its popularity. This point implies liability based on use of an entire family of legitimate business models (including Google's).

All previous theories of contributory infringement were direct. For instance, if Grokster employees stood outside of movie theaters and record stores saying "Why Buy? Steal Popular Music And Movies From Copyright Owners using Grokster!", they would clearly be guilty.

What SCOTUS has done today is create a new theory of liability, based on arbitrary whim: name similarity, failure to adequately satisfy a corporate plaintiff's demands, etc.

There should be little doubt that this case will have a chilling effect on US p2p innovation. I am deeply saddened by this unreasoned and imprecise decision. :-(

As I read it (IANAL), the main opinion emphasizes that the evidence shows Grokster's aims to encourage infringement were clear. "The record is replete with evidence that from the moment Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients use it to download copyrighted works, and each took active steps to encourage infringement." It furthermore notes that the Sony ruling only limited "liability resting on imputed intent", not "displacing other theories of secondary liability", and held "that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

The second opinion chose instead to emphasize the error in the summary judgement given (in these justices' view) there was an issue of material fact (which would thus need to be decided by a jury) as to whether there was substantial non-infringing use, and noting that "if the absolute number of noninfringing files copied using the Grokster and StreamCast software is large, it does not follow that the products are therefore put to substantial noninfringing uses and are thus immune from liability. The number of noninfringing copies may be reflective of, and dwarfed by, the huge total volume of files shared." This comment suggests that the Ginsburg group would be inclined to consider any protocol used more widely for piracy than legitimate traffic to be unlawful in future court cases.

In contrast, the Breyer group, while agreeing that actively pushing the infringing uses of a dual use technology confers liablility, chose to counter emphasize that the fraction of non-infringing traffic on these services was similar to the corresponding fraction from the Sony ruling.

This thus gives a hint at how the current court would view a direct challenge to future direct assault on other p2p applications, such as BitTorrent. Moreover, it is worth noting that the two justices supporting Breyer are widely expected to be retiring shortly. The importance of Bush's hypothetical appointments is increasing.

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/04-480.pd f

Or pdf actually

These Supremes answered the wrong question. They were asked to validate or repudiate the lower court's opinion. Which was that when Grokster does not promote criminal use, the software has has "substantial legal use", Grokster does not know when an illegal transaction occurs, and Grokster does not even itself have the power to bar a specific person from making a transaction, Grokster cannot be liable for a criminal transaction by a user. And, by extension, neither can any other provider of software meeting those conditions. The lower Grokster decision did not explicitly state that Grokster must not promote criminal use, though that seems implicit in "has substantial legal use", when such a condition is nowhere mentioned explicitly. You know, like how "possession of encryption implies criminal intent".

I suppose that Grokster also must not "force users to commit crimes, including at gunpoint or through hostages or nuclear blackmail", but the Supremes did leave us all thrashing in ignorance of that detail. Likewise, we still can't be sure that Grokster can avoid liability when they do not promote crime, because we can only infer that state - which costs a lot of money for lawyers to do, with Hollywood now making an industry out of propagandizing that implication.

Perhaps the lower court, to which the Supremes' decision returns the case for a new decision with their "advice", will find that Grokster is not liable, because it did not promote criminal use. Then MGM will take the case back to the Supremes (the 2008 remix). And perhaps the Supremes will reject hearing the new case, having heard it already. Then, like the Schiavos, MGM will keep their case under reconsideration for years. Grokster and the rest of us in the lower courts will spend a lot of money defending under this ambiguous ruling, and the entire P2P and streaming industries, not to mention software in general, will operate under the uncertainty that an ax could fall on our necks any June for the next decade. Thanks, you cranky ancient prima donnas with lifetime immunity from accountability! The rest of us have to live with your work for our entire lives, without that guaranteed paycheck. We really spend a lot of money on these Supreme Court justices, for them to produce such a shabby product.

Now, on the heels of that blatantly criminal "eminent domain" ruling, Conservatives will be screaming for new Supremes who "respect property rights" and "hold individuals responsible for their actions". When Bush appoints the most corporate Supremes we can imagine, and puts Clarence Thomas in charge of the court, we'll be stuck with the most corporate court ever, with the most corporate Congress ever, and the most corporate White House possible. Unless Democrats can take back the House and Senate next year, and deliver at least some of the competition with teeth that checks and balances our mechanical government, this country is doomed. And everyone else within its reach - which means everyone else. Funny how that particular blockbuster movie won't be coming out of MGM studios this Summer.

This is an unfortunate ruling -- should not have been accepted for ruling because while it really doesn't change anything legally, it will result in a wave of interpretation by RIAA/MPAA lawyers. It's totally wrong, but wouldn't surprise me in the least.

The loser here is Bram Cohen and his peers, as the legal costs of protecting themselves against these lawsuits will probably bankrupt them, or at the least, keep them tied up enough that they can't continue working on their products, stifling innovation (all to the smiling grins of the **IA's). It will also affect those of us that actually do use BitTorrent for legal purposes like downloading Linux distros (like me).

Note to Bram and Grokster -- please contact the EFF now.

If you want to read more info about this case, the EFF has a large amount of information about it on their website.. There are copies of documents, filings, articles, press conference audio etc.

The EFF has an interesting response on the situation.

Sorry, I meant to link to that quote.

Sneaking something into an appropriations bill, by definition, requires it be "sneaked"... impossible to do, if everyone knows about it. 3 weeks from now, 3 months from now, 3 years from now, there will be another bill, people won't be on guard for it, and it will return.

And that's exactly why you should donate to the EFF, and stay on thier action alert mailing list - so when they do try again the EFF can raise the alarm and you can hear it to take action.

Basically now there's ALWAYS someone watching. And that is a REALLY good thing.

There's more info at Deep Links. In a nutshell, Tuesday passed without incident; Thursday's full committee meeting is still to come.

It's not over yet.

Just between you, me, and a few other passing Slashdot folk, here's the extent of what we know: there's a senator who is (or was) friendly to the idea of dropping a BF amendment into the Senate Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Bill.

There are a number of opportunities for them to do this: drop it in sub-committee (Tues), full committee (Thurs), or even later in the passage of the bill.

If it's an uncontroversial amendment, and you're a sneaky senator, you're better off dropping it in early, because then the job is done, and someone else has to fight to get it out of the bill.

The more controversial it becomes, the later you should place it (when the bill has some momentum, and fixes are harder).

The BF got a lot more controversial this week.

The campaign switched this to becoming the "Broadcast what?" amendment, to the "Is this that Godforsaken thing that's been melting my staffers phones all week?".

It was always an even split whether the sneak move would go in Tues or Thurs (which was why it was a 48 hour campaign, and we've been targetting the full Appropriations Committee). They could still try and stick it in tomorrow, but that's becoming increasingly unlikely (we're betting 50/50 right now). Too hot a potato.

Next stop in this line of attack would be an amendment on the senate floor, but there's some time to go before that.

I've written about the effect of your messages on the EFF site, but that's mostly statistics on exactly how big the response was (summary: for a campaign targetted at a few senators in a short time-frame, it was huge).

I'm currently pulling together all the possible opportunities the broadcasters have for sneaking the flag in. I'm tempted to publish that, because it would give people a better overview, but there's a bit of me that thinks "Don't let them know what the opposition knows!". What do people think?

According to the latest EFF announcement, the campaign was in place to prevent the ammendment from being proposed - in other words, the EFF campaign is working.

Any chance we could get an update of this? I'd like to know how well the campaign is going or even if this rumor turned out to be true or not. There isn't updated info on EFF's site (https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSession Idr005=h6syvpnbt1.app8a&page=UserAction&cmd=displa y&id=145)