Slashdot Mirror

El replied: Gee, funny how those damn conservatives managed to pass all those with a Democrat majority in congress...

Gee, funny how that didn't happen. The Republicans have the majority in the House and the Senate now. When the PATRIOT Act was passed on 24 Oct 2001, they had the majority in the House and the Senate was evenly divided (see this page about the 107th congress).

It really bothers me when the government tries to legislate morality. Everything is up for interpretation, and what I may feel is ok for my child to view may not be the same as what the legislature has in mind. Reading through the COPA, it has vague statements such as:

(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

or this:

(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest

What is art is certainly debateable. Magazines such as Playboy come across as more artsy to me than pornographic. Although, I'm sure if we apply "contemporary community standards" the law would be in disagreement with me. As for how they are to attain those standards, or whether the opinions of the community should dictate what every kid is exposed to is questionable at best.

I believe it was originally called "Total Information Awareness" and the changed it, after some bad publicity, to "Terrorist Information Awareness".

See http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/

Such "generic" orders could have a significant impact on the privacy rights of large numbers of innocent users, particularly those who access the Internet through public facilities such as libraries, university computer labs and cybercafes. Upon the suspicion that an intelligence target might use such a facility, the FBI can now monitor all communications transmitted at the facility. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the recipient of the assistance order (for instance, a library) would be prohibited from disclosing the fact that monitoring is occurring.

The "generic" roving wiretap orders raise significant constitutional issues, as they do not comport with the Fourth Amendment's requirement that any search warrant "particularly describe the place to be searched." That deficiency becomes even more significant where the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally.

Of course (note the sarcasm here), all this should be obvious to any fool who reads the text of section 206:

Section 105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting `, or in circumstances where the Court finds that the actions of the target of the application may have the effect of thwarting the identification of a specified person, such other persons,' after `specified person'.

And to think that some people find the American legal system a baffling black box :)

Cheers,
-Bill

Oh, at least since the PATRIOT ACT was made into law - it probably goes back to long before that though. (I am not a lawyer)

It seems to me the ability to designate any web site as a terrorist organization, would potentially give the Feds the authority to tap the entire Internet. That's the gist i get from the Patriot Act, not that you can easily figure out what this law actually does...

For example...

I'd love to get my hands on whatever obfusicator our politicans ran on the USA Patriot Act. What a mess:

SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or'.

Trying to figure out the new powers granted the government in the USA Patriot Act involves a ridiculous array of search-and-replace scavenger hunting.

EPIC has a handy timeline of Do-Not-Call Registry events at http://epic.org/privacy/telemarketing/dnc/

1) It's not the "web", it's the "Internet" - unless you plan on making everything a bunch of HTTP servers?

2) Having a video feed, and knowing what the feed is of, are two very different things. Knowing the IP address will only be marginally helpful, especially with DHCP or PPPOE in use in *alot* of cases.

3) So, you have a picture of some guy's bedroom. It's 3 blocks from a commited crime. And...?

4) Also, remember that power corrupts... We need to ensure that the proper checks are in place before we start trusting this technology.

5) Remember TIA? Co-ordinating data from so many disparate sources is much more daunting than it seems, however sexy it sounds.

C'mon!

Interesting point, but nowadays fraud is ignored (eBay, PayPal), there is (almost) no such thing as an illegal wiretap, and privacy is an anachronism.

Sorry, you don't remember correctly, the first line of HR 3162 is:

To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.

Obviously, not having read the Patriot Act doesn't seem to bar people from either criticizing it or voting it into law. Oh, the irony.

Full Text of the Patriot Act

Nevertheless, our decisions have recognized "the 'commonsense' distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech. ... The protection available for particular commercial expression turns on the nature both of the expression and of the governmental interests served by its regulation."

The White House's push for greater Patriot Act powers follows in the wake of allegations that law enforcement agencies increasingly use Patriot Act tools to capture and punish run-of-the-mill criminals rather than terrorists. The Justice Department concedes that it has applied its expanded powers to smugglers, defrauders, bookies, con artists, and drug dealers.

The White House's push for greater Patriot Act powers follows in the wake of allegations that law enforcement agencies increasingly use Patriot Act tools to capture and punish run-of-the-mill criminals rather than terrorists. The Justice Department concedes that it has applied its expanded powers to smugglers, defrauders, bookies, con artists, and drug dealers.

These folks make the case far better than I can:

EFF's position paper
The American Library Association
Joe Barr mentioned a couple good points in his article at Creative Loafing.

Here's the DOJ's take. When you read it, ask yourself who defines a terrorist, and would you be willing to believe them?

Finally, the USA PATRIOT Act
(Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Hell, with a cool ass acronym like that for a name, how could you possibly be against it ;)
(read: How could you possibly not be against it. Tortuously clever acronyms are often a sign of bad policy)

P.S. Nice try on the sig. Those are for APPLICATIONS not Linux you dolt. Here is my new sig

31 Unpatched IE security holes
Server attacks stump Microsoft
Credit card theft feared in Windows flaw
Microsoft issues patch for "serious" XP hole
Windows flaw threatens PC services
Microsoft's Source Code Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Why I hate Microsoft
bsod_videowall
bsod_airport
License to plunder
Microsoft Media Player logs users' DVD picks
MS wanted to 'extend, embrace and extinguish' competition
Microsoft Palladium
Control with fine print
Microsoft WinXP Update spies on other PC software
Microsoft Windows: Insecure by Design
Microsoft software "riddled with vulnerabilities", trade body claims
Microsoft Issues Five New Security Warnings
Why Open Source Software / Free Software

There is a pretty strong consensus among many US citizens that the PATRIOT Act was a power grab by the government during a time when the populace was vulnerable.

People who are very concerned about the PATRIOT Act:
Libertarians
The Green Party
The EFF
The ACLU
EPIC

The only people who don't seem to be concerned about the PATRIOT Act are the Republicans and Democrats who voted it in and stand to gain the most from it. I hope this concerns you, especially if you are a US citizen.

The long term problem with IBM's model of the TCPA is exactly the same with that of clipper chip encryption, the owner of the PC does NOT control the attestation master keys. This leads to the same escrow agent model which is far to open to exploitation by The New American Corporate Soviet.

``(1) Prohibited conduct.--Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

"You'd have to cripple the entire operating system while the document is open."

Did you not read that part of the plan?

http://www.epic.org/privacy/consumer/microsoft/pal ladium.html

Proud patriot and republican voter.

Pick one or the other; You can't have both.

The summary makes it seem like the government is just stalking homeless people to be annoying and intrusive. Whether the government does something stupid or not, you can bet they have a reason for doing it (even though the reason might also be stupid). But what's the reason to stalk and track "homeless people"? It's not just to be annoying and intrusive.

From the EPIC HMIS fact sheet (pdf):

Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) are database systems intended to track recipients of benefits in order to assess the number of persons receiving care, and to improve efficiency of services to the poor.

I happen to work for a company that deals with electronifying benefits for people on welfare, and you can bet there is a LOT of time spent both by financial institutions, private companies and governments (both state and federal), and it's not just for fun. There is a huge problem with fraud, and whether you're homeless or not, you can count on the government wanting to continue their trend of knowing which welfare recipients are spending what, who doesn't spend any of it, and who's money is being spent but not by the intended recipient (aka, fraud).

Consider this: without fraud protection, monitoring, and investigation, each and every tax-paying citizen will be indirectly donating a portion of their hard-earned cash to fund a bunch of welfare thieves.

As you suggest, a distributed, global (federated) identity would make this all a lot easier and work a lot better. Persistent profile information is powerful and offers many advantages to citizens, corporations and all those middlemen, but can lead to serious privacy abuses if the information is not securely - and absolutely - controlled by the profile owner.

The fact that global identity is so valuable has not escaped the eye of marketing departments everywhere, and there are several projects aimed at establishing global identities for consumers. (Note that I say "consumers" here rather than "citizens" as the systems being designed generally only see you as a consumer and nothing more. Therefore, since there's nothing to buy on Slashdot or Poliglut, you probably wouldn't exist on those systems.)

There are two main problems with the currently proposed systems: Passport, designed by Microsoft, is a wholly centralized system. (The only thing good about this is that your profile data in Passport is not in danger of being bought by Microsoft!) The other system is Project Liberty, a system being put together by a scary consortium of BigCos. EPIC has a good, short paper on the privacy considerations of Liberty here.

There's a new group in this area working...

...to create the world's premier electronic system for individuals and organizations to interact commercially, socially and personally, while providing every entity with control of its information, identity, and relationships consistent with healthy communities.

So where does one go? First, of course it has to be open source. PGP's web of trust, Ron Rivest's and Carl Ellison's SPKI/SDSI, and Matt Blaze's Keynote all offer secure local name spaces and even integrated trust management systems. (Thought I had forgotten about your original point, didn't you?) We're nearing completion of a requirements specification and hope to have an initial implementation by years end. And this is being done mostly by volunteers, as there's no money (yet).

BTW, one of the most difficult problems facing federated identity systems such as Liberty is how to get all these BigCos to work together. We're following Chaordic approach that, like the Visa payment system, melds simple but powerful global unilateral agreements (Principles) with local control of agreements that control inter-group relationships.

"I filled out my saver card with false info"

Was it EPIC who had a loyalty-card-swapping party at one of their conferences?

Fun ways to screw up antiprivacy software...

> Said machine was supposed to track all world trade through
> monitoring the buying and selling of every citizen on the planet...
> These could be seen by infrared scanners at 'special verification
> counters' (cash tills, to you and us).

so, now we can finally all rest assured,
since it was all just a fiction... OR CAN WE...!? :-\

>> ECHELON :
http://www.echelonwatch.org/
http://www.fas.or g/irp/program/process/echelon.htm

ECHELON attempts to capture staggering volumes of satellite,
microwave, cellular and fiber-optic traffic... This massive
surveillance system apparently operates with little oversight.

>> TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/

The goal is to track individuals through collecting as much
information about them as possible...

The project calls for the development of ultra-large all-source
information repositories, which would contain information from
multiple sources to create a 'virtual, centralized, grand
database.' This database would be populated by transaction
data contained in current databases such as financial records,
medical records, communication records, and travel records as
well as new sources of information. ...biometric technology
to enable the identification and tracking of individuals.
DARPA has already funded its 'Human ID at a Distance' program,
which aims to positively identify people from a distance
through technologies such as face recognition or gait recognition.
A nationwide identificationsystem would be of great assistance
to such a project by providing aneasy means to track individuals
across multiple information sources.

TIA Report to Congress May 2003.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/m ay03_re port.pdf

Congress Report Executive Summary and FAQ May 2003:
http://www.darpa.mil/body/tia/TIA%20ES.pdf

TIA System Description (PDF, 4.5 MB):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/ti asyste mdescription.pdf

Poindexter's August 2002 Speech:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/poindex ter.html

???

Luckily Verizon is still pushing for legal changes to the DMCA to limit this DMCA provision. Although I don't think they should need to get a judge's signature for each individual infringer (that's just trying to protect file sharers through beuracracy), a judge should need to sign off on groups of file sharers, by looking at how the IP addresses were obtained, and determining whther this method show reasonable suspicion of illegal file sharing which would warrant a subpoena.

• "Yes, I was detained and harrassed by federal airport security without cause or explanation because my name is David Nelson. I am not allowed to know that I am on a do-not-fly list or what criteria put a person there in the first place."
• "Yes, I was forced to drink my own breast milk out of three bottles by federal airport security to prove it was not a "security risk."
• "Yes, my right to freely assembly has been infringed my Bush and his cronies with their establishment of (incredibly cyncially named) 'First Amendment Zones' that stipulate that demonstrators who are protesting the president must remain in specific "safe distances" often blocks away from presidential appearances, while "supporters" are allowed to demonstrate in the immediate vicinity.
• "Yes, my government is developing a system that will systematically spy on everyone, all of the time, in an effort to provide me better "security." Thankfully, budgetary politics in the Senate will hopefully kill this monstrosity."
• "Yes, my ability to fairly use information and art I paid for is being stifled and criminalized, to outrageous degrees."
• "Sorry, what was the question?"
  

• "Yes, I was detained and harrassed by federal airport security without cause or explanation because my name is David Nelson. I am not allowed to know that I am on a do-not-fly list or what criteria put a person there in the first place."
• "Yes, I was forced to drink my own breast milk out of three bottles by federal airport security to prove it was not a "security risk."
• "Yes, my right to freely assembly has been infringed my Bush and his cronies with their establishment of (incredibly cyncially named) 'First Amendment Zones' that stipulate that demonstrators who are protesting the president must remain in specific "safe distances" often blocks away from presidential appearances, while "supporters" are allowed to demonstrate in the immediate vicinity.
• "Yes, my government is developing a system that will systematically spy on everyone, all of the time, in an effort to provide me better "security." Thankfully, budgetary politics in the Senate will hopefully kill this monstrosity."
• "Yes, my ability to fairly use information and art I paid for is being stifled and criminalized, to outrageous degrees."
• "Sorry, what was the question?"
  

Or do you not remember the CDA ?

They already renamed it once from Total Information Awareness to Terrorism Information Awareness:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/

Understandably people are taking a closer look at the provisions under the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act now that the initial shock of 9/11 has worn off. The reaction to "do something" is not being governed by the climate of fear and the urgent feeling for a rapid response that followed the attacks, which also meant that many legislators didn't read or understand the entire bill. The fear of political opponents using a vote against a bill with the name "PATRIOT" didn't help.

Obviously many of those who are taking a sober second thought about the provisions don't like what they see, and this may be the start of a movement to let the sunset clause on the act take effect. It is set to expire at midnight (0h00) January 1, 2006.

Librarians are at the forefront of the movement and the American Library Association's USA PATRIOT Act campaign is one of many legislative and privacy issues that they address.

The July 4th weekend may be a good time to think about the USA PATRIOT act, argues the SJMC. Declan McCullagh offers his thoughts on the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 AKA PATRIOT Act II. You can also read EPIC's view of the DSEA 2003 and the original USA PATRIOT Act. They also have links to the text of the legislation and other info.

Understandably people are taking a closer look at the provisions under the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act now that the initial shock of 9/11 has worn off. The reaction to "do something" is not being governed by the climate of fear and the urgent feeling for a rapid response that followed the attacks, which also meant that many legislators didn't read or understand the entire bill. The fear of political opponents using a vote against a bill with the name "PATRIOT" didn't help.

Obviously many of those who are taking a sober second thought about the provisions don't like what they see, and this may be the start of a movement to let the sunset clause on the act take effect. It is set to expire at midnight (0h00) January 1, 2006.

Librarians are at the forefront of the movement and the American Library Association's USA PATRIOT Act campaign is one of many legislative and privacy issues that they address.

The July 4th weekend may be a good time to think about the USA PATRIOT act, argues the SJMC. Declan McCullagh offers his thoughts on the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 AKA PATRIOT Act II. You can also read EPIC's view of the DSEA 2003 and the original USA PATRIOT Act. They also have links to the text of the legislation and other info.

The text of the Act is here, and there are explanations in regular English here and here.

The text of the Act is here, and there are explanations in regular English here and here.

I could have made the same comparisons to germany 8 years ago, under a completely different administration - in fact, many people were. Remember "V-chip" and Clipper? Remember all those PC rants about "those liberals in the whitehouse?"

PATRIOT ACT

I didn't say anything along the lines of both sides being right. I did say, however, that we cannot assume that we are on the side of right when we are guilty of so many wrongs ourselves. Note the Patriot Act when you talk about a government that supresses individual freedoms. I didn't propose that we should let brutal dictators rule without oversight. (Maybe we should try not to put them in power in the first place, and then prove truthfully why they must be ousted before attacking.)

Before criticizing everyone else, we should look to ourselves. If any one of us is guilty of moral relativism, or indeed of naivete, I am not he.

If you were running an intelligence agency and you aquired some sensitive software from annother country's intelligence agency, wouldn't you want the source code?

Would you even consider accepting the software without it?

Foreign* inetlligence agencies are so well known for being trustworthy.

NSA: Hey! I've got this new, fast, secure encryption chip! Why don't you use it!
Rest of world: OK, let's see the schematics and algorythim...
NSA: But it's classified. And I'm keeping the private keys, but the FBI will need a search warrant to get them, so it's ok.
Rest of world: No thanks, we'll just use PGP.

Sound familiar?

The requirement to distribute source code does not mean they have to distribute it publicly, just to those they distribute the binaries to.

*Foreign is of course a relative term in this context.

Actually, a quick look at the subscription numbers of those services shows quite well how that is simply not true. Consumers have not demanded a crippled product that disallows most of the abilities they want.

While I might agree with you in concept, what the hell numbers are you quickly looking at? You got a great reference: sight it. Otherwise as far as I can tell you pulled that out of your ass.

"The goal of copy protection in CDs is not to prevent individuals from making copies that they want to make for personal use, but rather to prevent individuals from distributing the recordings or making copies they don't have a right to make."

Yet it seems they have not discovered the magic way of discerning between those two, so will happily prevent both.

Bingo, this is the business world. They aren't there to protect your rights, just their interests. See the well know industry attempts at more percise crippling attempts: Palladium, Digital Rights Management

"The record industry has been hit very hard in the last few years as a result of illegal downloading and piracy.
In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent.
During that same period, illegal Internet downloading has skyrocketed. On the FastTrack network alone, there are about 900 million files being distributed at any given moment. The majority of those files are music files. Polls confirm that those individuals who are downloading illegally online are buying less. That illegal downloading is decreasing sales is probably not a surprise to anyone."

Such a common, simple, wrong assumption at work here. A decrease in sales and an increase in music downloading have *not* been shown to be related. The economy as a whole has been hit very hard in the last few years. In fact, studies have suggested this effect can explain nearly all of the riaa members' decreased sales. It is handy to have a scape-goat, but as usual, the scape-goat is likely not the problem at all.

Finally, a reference. Here I'm just curious: does anyone really believe that as P2P becomes more common it wouldn't disrupt sales? The paradigm has shifted, thats the issue here. Does the Recording Industry have the right to limit our rights in order to protect an out moded business model?

"In any event, are you suggesting that a royalty dispute between an artist and a label is justification for stealing from both of them? Would you feel free to shoplift a CD from a record store based on that logic?"

Hm, I wond

Actually, a quick look at the subscription numbers of those services shows quite well how that is simply not true. Consumers have not demanded a crippled product that disallows most of the abilities they want.

While I might agree with you in concept, what the hell numbers are you quickly looking at? You got a great reference: sight it. Otherwise as far as I can tell you pulled that out of your ass.

"The goal of copy protection in CDs is not to prevent individuals from making copies that they want to make for personal use, but rather to prevent individuals from distributing the recordings or making copies they don't have a right to make."

Yet it seems they have not discovered the magic way of discerning between those two, so will happily prevent both.

Bingo, this is the business world. They aren't there to protect your rights, just their interests. See the well know industry attempts at more percise crippling attempts: Palladium, Digital Rights Management

"The record industry has been hit very hard in the last few years as a result of illegal downloading and piracy.
In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent.
During that same period, illegal Internet downloading has skyrocketed. On the FastTrack network alone, there are about 900 million files being distributed at any given moment. The majority of those files are music files. Polls confirm that those individuals who are downloading illegally online are buying less. That illegal downloading is decreasing sales is probably not a surprise to anyone."

Such a common, simple, wrong assumption at work here. A decrease in sales and an increase in music downloading have *not* been shown to be related. The economy as a whole has been hit very hard in the last few years. In fact, studies have suggested this effect can explain nearly all of the riaa members' decreased sales. It is handy to have a scape-goat, but as usual, the scape-goat is likely not the problem at all.

Finally, a reference. Here I'm just curious: does anyone really believe that as P2P becomes more common it wouldn't disrupt sales? The paradigm has shifted, thats the issue here. Does the Recording Industry have the right to limit our rights in order to protect an out moded business model?

"In any event, are you suggesting that a royalty dispute between an artist and a label is justification for stealing from both of them? Would you feel free to shoplift a CD from a record store based on that logic?"

Hm, I wond

It could be that Microsoft plans on killing VPC, and doesn't want there to be any way to run Windows on Mac.

Q: Yes, but why?
A: Palladium.

Microsoft is really into this whole Palladium thing. It provides a way to secure future revenue streams once Windows' competitors pass it by on the technology front. They just need to provide a 'secure platform' and convince/acquire the big media players into only allowing their IP to be available on Palladium.

Palladium relies on trusted hardware. If you have a bunch of trusted 'hardware' out there running emulated in software it's suddenly much easier to peek at. This is bad for media sales, and Microsoft revenue.

So, might as well cut off any such efforts before they get off the ground. Who do you think has more lawyers, FWB or Microsoft? My vocabulary word of the day today is barratry.

From this perspective, the iTunes Music Store is the biggest poke in the eye Steve could have stuck to Bill, and puts them on the defensive like nothing else could. The iTunes Music Store is actually strategically necessary for the future viability of Mac OS X and Apple. It's real purpose is to preempt Palladium. I have to admit, that's pretty frikkin clever.

Man. That is some of the most convoluted logic I have ever seen.

Let's start with your assessment of capitalism vs. democracy. While you have that handy dictionary of yours open, look up the word 'private', as in "private or corporate ownership of capital goods". An economic system where anybody but the government owns the goods does not contradict a democracy "for the people" in any way. Capitalism is an economic system with the same goals as a democratic government- to limit the power of the government. Capitalism and democracy can (and do) coexist without any contradiction.

Your comparison of capitalism and feudalism is equally flawed. Keep in mind that under capitalism, you own your fate. If you are unhappy with your "lord", then move on to a different lord or become a lord yourself. Let's see you do that under feudalism...

About the PATRIOT act- I suggest that instead of relying on biased op-ed pieces or political commentary, you should go straight to the facts (all 300+ pages of it). In fact- here is the text of the PATRIOT Act. Show me where that allows for "abductions" by the government (hint: it doesn't), or what is now closed for scrutiny under the law (hint: everything that required a judge's approval before the PATRIOT Act still does). I know it's popular here to bash PATRIOT, but at least read what you are complaining about.

History has shown time and time again that when small companies are allowed to flourish that our economy is more stable, better off, and more flexible to change. Mega-lithic corporations are the bane of our existence.

Um, what history has shown us is that our current economic system has done more good for more people than any other economic system EVER. Recent history has also shown us that most abusive "mega-lithic" corporations are regulated by the market (that is, the people), and only a few have required government intervention (like Rockefeller).

I'd also like you to reconcile these two statements:
The answer is to force companies to do what is right
and
What? Does the US Government always know what is right for me?

If we are to force companies to do what is right, then who decides what is right? By your own admission, the government can't always be trusted with that decision.

the answer is to force companies to split into smaller companies.

Punishing successful people will not help anything- it will only discourage others from trying. And allowing the government to decide how successful you are allowed to be will not give you the power that you seek.

Dr. Dill argued, however, that if voting machines were really secure, then voters would be able to see the insides of their "proprietary" technology. "If someone really has a tamper-resistant machine, they should tell you enough about how the machine works so you can assure yourself that the machine works," he said. "We don't know what the weaknesses are. We don't know who the people are that control that stuff."

Mr. Terwilliger said that Sequoia was willing to share its source code, provided viewers sign nondisclosure agreements.

552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:

(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public--

(A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;

(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;

(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations;

(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general
applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and

(E) each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing.

For further proof that they're not the BFG you imply, there's also their plan to sell customer's calling records: see the EPIC letter.

Egads, I've turned into a bitter Slashdot geek.

Josh

Privacy is not liberty, nor is it a "civil liberty", although it might be a "civil right"

This is an excellent and correct point, but I'll quibble just a bit. Some degree of privacy is a prerequisite for some liberties. For instance, it's widely (including by the SCOTUS) held that both a freedom of speech and a freedom to read require some protection of privacy to be meaningful. Privacy may not be a liberty in and of itself, but it is necessary for other liberties.

Absolutely. I can't say enough good things about EPIC. I've given money to them regularly over the years and it's some of the best money I've ever spent. It's sometimes hard to tell when giving to a charity is really making a dent in anything at all, but it's easily apparent that this organization is using its money wisely and producing quality results.

This is not to say that the EFF is bad in any way. They also do quite good work. They just have a different charter, which is more diversified than just privacy issues.

our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community

That's certainly true. They have come up with far more innovative ways to introduce fatal security holes, integrate flawed and overly restrictive DRM into their products, and come out with countless patches and service packs that sometimes even break basic system functionality. On top of that, M$ continues to complain that the very existence of open source might actually force them to improve their products! Sorry about that Bill, we obviously miscalculated what a burden we were placing on you. Please let us know what we can do to help your business stay the way it is and keep pissing off your users.

There are serious privacy groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The problem is that most people don't find it a serious enough issue right now to donate big money to, and you're unlikely to see many corporations that wish to back them.

These issues have been so widely discussed on Slashdot that you should have been able to follow a few of the links and do somesearch. For privacy/copyright/patent/piracy issues start reading through and following links from this starter list:

EFF
Lawrence Lessig
EPIC
Consumer's Union
Forbes (search for articles on copyright, patents, or intellectual property
Eldred

Slashdot also could be considered in violation of COPPA

And so you're saying we should give Amazon a pass or we should contact EPIC about Slashdot? (That's a serious question, btw, not just a rhetorical one. In the process of answering, I hope you'll include a justification of your answer, too, since that's the part I'm really curious about.)

But they're a bit light on the details with this one.

Do they have specific problem cases they're citing? As I understand Amazon, it's a place where you go to buy stuff with a credit card. Unless there are some nutty parents out there, we don't need to worry about this happening with young children.

Then epic goes on to say how Amazon is using kiddie fonts to lure in children. I must be incredibly naive, I thought it was there to soften up the feel of the website, make it feel a touch more like a toy store, and more importantly to soften up parents' wallets.

So the problem, basically, is that a kid could use his parents' computer without permission to create an account and then post a review on a product? Are they going after the spirit or the letter of the law here?

If I were a 13 year old kid, I'd be more concerned with filling up my wishlist for Christmas than posting reviews anyhow.

The story mentions that EPIC was the one to file suit against DoubleClick. Now would be a good time to send them some money.