Slashdot Mirror

I enjoy my daily dose of Slashdot, but honestly whoever wrote this is trying to hype this thing way out of context.

The FCC in NO WAY made any comment on the security of opensource software. They merely said the using opensource based software defined radios in commercial products would be hard to gain approval, due to the obvious fact that if users can modify that software they can do things such as increase power or change operating frequencies which are illegal because they can allow interference with others' communication devices.

This is also potentially dangerous because it could interfere with law enforcement, ambulances, or any other kind of emergency or important communications.

Now, if we want to argue on the point of how opensource can be used while limiting the user from making serious/illegal changes to software modems, that's one thing. (I don't see how this could ever be worked out under the tivoization clauses in GPL3).

But lets not get all fired up at our FCC when it really hasn't said a thing about the "security" of opensource projects. Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot folks - think for yourself and make sure you read the real source documents before you fire off like idiots.

A more balanced article about this topic:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9075126639.html

The REAL FCC document:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/07-2684.htm

It is illegal in the US: Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Sections 1029 or 1030 of U.S. Code are good places to start looking, but there are other federal and state ordinances against fraudulently gaining access to "access devises."

It is illegal in the US: Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Sections 1029 or 1030 of U.S. Code are good places to start looking, but there are other federal and state ordinances against fraudulently gaining access to "access devises."

4) Martial Law. Wha? Nope. It's real. President now has the authority to declare martial law for... "Other Reasons" (unspecified). It's in the law!

Citation? I checked against Cornell's US Code database and found only five passages that contain the phrase "martial law." Two pertain to China (Title 12, 635 and Title 22, 2151), one to suspension of aid to Eastern Europe (Title 22, 5491), and two to governors of Guam and the US Virgin Islands (Title 48, 1422 and 1581).

Want to earn some money? Nope the IRS will take a bunch of your income, although there is no LAW permitting them to do it. (Look It Up)

There's a law authorizing regulations authorizing what the IRS does. You can read the IRS regulations in the US Code of Federal Regulations, specifically Section 26. The laws that the IRS enforces are in Title 26 of the US Code.

6) Concentration camps. Excuse me, what? Yes, the USA now has about 800 concentration camps dotting the countryside.

Again, citation? I remember this being talked about on Cipherpunks years ago, and I shot it down then with satellite pictures courtesy of the then-fledgling Microsoft satellite photo system, not to mention that I was familiar with some of the areas in question in SoCal and that many of the cross streets identified ran parallel for miles -- sometimes miles apart -- and never intersected once.

US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.

But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.

Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.

Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_ 2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public; 2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r25_04.html,
subpart D
ttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr 74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi

US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.

But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.

Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.

Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_ 2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public; 2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r25_04.html,
subpart D
ttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr 74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi

US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.

But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.

Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.

Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_ 2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public; 2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r25_04.html,
subpart D
ttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr 74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi

US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.

But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.

Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.

Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_ 2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public; 2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r25_04.html,
subpart D
ttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr 74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi

US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.

But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.

Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.

Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_ 2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public; 2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r25_04.html,
subpart D
ttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr 74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi

I would love nothing more than eliminating both the illegals and the unions across the board. (Why are Hyundais cheaper than Chevys?) This is, however, not likely to happen. Federal construction jobs, for instance, are done at "prevailing wage". For example see here

These wages are based largely on union wages. Based on a law from 1931

Lawmakers need to see the benefit, or the status quo would continue. The Labor Unions still have a lot of political clout.

Chap. 28, Sec. 271.: Infringement of patent
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,
within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

Chap. 29, Sec. 281.: Remedy for infringement of patent
A patentee shall have remedy by civil action for infringement of his patent.

Crimes of Thought

Most of you 20-somethings (the ME Generation) Don't know much about what happened in this country in the early 50's with Joe McCarthy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

It's happening all over again here come the crimes of thought. Soon you won't be able to write or say anything that the government doesn't want you to say, they will call it terrorism.

HR1592
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1592ih.txt.pdf

Welcome to 1984 The Ministry of Love will Take Care of YOU.

SueSue

It's right here (PDF).

Do the Slashdot editors not know how to find stuff on Al Gore's Tubes of Internets?

From the bill:
"IN GENERAL.--The term 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such 1 officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders."

Saying that somehow simply having more than 500 readers constitutes "payment" is pure FUD.

From the same pdf:
The term 'paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof 'does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.

Simply if a blog had 500 or more "members" they could of been made to register, which is exactly waht I had said which you said is wrong.

If you had read the original bill you would have seen how a blogger with less than 500 members did not have to register, but it also said nothing about one who had 500 or more. So if a person had 500 people who read the blog it could of been considered as being paid.

The answer is simple.

Proprietary closed source software cannot be validated. You cannot trust that it will always work properly, because the source is not available for validation.

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/comp/guidance/938.html

http://standards.ieee.org/catalog/olis/se.html

http://hissa.nist.gov/HHRFdata/Artifacts/ITLdoc/23 4/val-proc.html#233_SEC

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi? title=200621

Software pricing has nothing to do with it. The validation process in regulated environments will cost many times more than the actual value of the software itself. The cost of the actual software is trivial.

Closed source software has no future in regulated, mission-critical applications.

Belief and faith are irrelevant.

For reference, since I forgot to go back and link them, Title 35 102 a and b both deal with works that have already been known or patented anywhere prior to the filing, in or out of the US.

For reference, since I forgot to go back and link them, Title 35 102 a and b both deal with works that have already been known or patented anywhere prior to the filing, in or out of the US.

The same can be said of SI prefixes. Why use them instead of solely using scientific notation?

The point is, you can do it either way, and the systems are quickly convertible. Those are options, not needless complexity. I know that 3 x 10^-3 L is 3 mL. What is 3 x 10^-3 gallons in teaspoons?

I've never seen a gas station in the US sell in units other than decimal gallons, and I know of no gas station penalized by any state standards authority for not selling gasoline in gallonts/quarts/pints/etc.

You're arguing my point for me. The pseudo-base two system you're insisting is so elegant and wonderful is so useless in real life that modern implementations of british units have been metric-ized. As in decimal gallons, mils (thousandths of an inch), or your milliteaspoon.

How many milimeters of mercury are in a pascal? What about in kilograms of force per square meter?

I have no idea--mm Hg are not any more metric than pounds per square inch. Also, I'm sure you probably knew this, but kg are units of mass, not force. The newton is the SI unit of force, and 1 Pa is defined as 1 N/m^2. Pounds correspond to newtons, while slugs correspond to kilograms.

"A few seconds?" I could tell you there are 768 teaspoons in a US gallon in less time.

Yes, and I can tell you there are 1000 mL in 1 L pretty quickly too. A calculation that would actually be analogous would be for you to tell me how many cubic 1/2^n-ths of an inch there are in a femtogallon (where n is an integer). Besides, shouldn't there be 512 teaspoons in a US gallon if we're going by powers of two? I guess there are three teaspoons in a tablespoon, unless you're in Australia, where there are four, or unless you're in an industry that defines the teaspoon as 5 mL...

Perhaps the speculation comes from observing history: See embrace and exten d and read the findgs of fact in the Microsoft antitrust case

It's not unreasonable to assume Microsoft's motive is to entangle its patents and proprietary code with Linux, then at some point down the road, have learned a thing or two from SCO, drag the GPL through the courts with and army of lawyers and gain legal grounds to start suing its competition.

Could you please point out which regulations you are talking about?

Here is an example... this is just the regulations regarding filing the paperwork in order to be allowed to market a drug:
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate. cgi?WAISdocID=729928520821+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrie ve

Here are regulations for the labeling of drugs:
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate. cgi?WAISdocID=729928520821+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrie ve

Do a CFR search for drug regulations (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html), and you find thousands and thousands of pages of regulations on the whole drug development process. This isn't a simple set basic, transparent safety rules in place to protect consumers, this is vast byzentine system that micromanages the entire drug development processes.

I prefer my drugs to be proven safe and do what they claim. They are very strict because the developer's "oops" is someone else's life.

Except that "safe" is a totally subjective concept. Tell someone with AIDS, or a terminal cancer patient, that they can't get a new experimental drug that might save their lives that they can't have the drug because it hasn't gone through 10 years of clinical trials, and is therefore not "safe". Yeah, and AIDS AND CANCER AREN'T SAFE EITHER!!!! Why the hell can't the patient and their doctors decide what is safe and what is not?

I prefer to own my own body and to be able to put whatever chemical I see fit into it... than to have my body owned by the FDA who decide what chemicals I have the PRIVLEDGE to be allowed to put into it. If a drug needs to be tested for safety, let doctors, medical journals, and the medical community do the testing and publish the results in an open, competitive, and transparent process - one open to judgement by doctors and patients on how much risk THEY are willing to take. There doesn't need to be a safety dictatorship to command us all on what is the risk we should be allowed to take.

Prove this statement. Be specific instead of just waving your arms around.

It is not an immediatly proveable or disprovable statement, it is a subjective analysis of the facts. No one disagrees that drug costs are rising dramaticly, that is fact... no one disagrees that drug company profits are rising dramaticly, that is fact... No one disagrees that the drug companies make political contributions to politicians, that is a fact. No one disagrees that drug regulations and cost of compliance is rising, that is fact... No one disagrees that it now takes orders of magnitude more capital to produce a profitable drug now, than it did 50 years ago, that is fact.

Now, the question is, is the massive government beurocracy designed to protect the people, or is it designed to create a barrier to market that only a few massive-capital corporations can meet, and therefore to limit competition. Well, you feel that even though that FDA officials are appointed by politicians in the pockets of the big drug companies, the FDA by the virtue of being a government agency, are uncorrupted and tireless crusaders for our welfare. I, on the other hand, see the FDA being in the pocket of the drug companies, still continuing to increase and increase regulation, determine that there must be a profit motive to encouraging all the regulation... otherwise the drug companies would pay off politicians who reduce regulation instead of ones who do. It is a completly reasonable, and in fact most reasonable analysis of the situation to conclude that the drug companies are working with the FDA to create barriers to market so that only big-pharma can afford to do buisness.

Could you please point out which regulations you are talking about?

Here is an example... this is just the regulations regarding filing the paperwork in order to be allowed to market a drug:
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate. cgi?WAISdocID=729928520821+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrie ve

Here are regulations for the labeling of drugs:
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate. cgi?WAISdocID=729928520821+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrie ve

Do a CFR search for drug regulations (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html), and you find thousands and thousands of pages of regulations on the whole drug development process. This isn't a simple set basic, transparent safety rules in place to protect consumers, this is vast byzentine system that micromanages the entire drug development processes.

I prefer my drugs to be proven safe and do what they claim. They are very strict because the developer's "oops" is someone else's life.

Except that "safe" is a totally subjective concept. Tell someone with AIDS, or a terminal cancer patient, that they can't get a new experimental drug that might save their lives that they can't have the drug because it hasn't gone through 10 years of clinical trials, and is therefore not "safe". Yeah, and AIDS AND CANCER AREN'T SAFE EITHER!!!! Why the hell can't the patient and their doctors decide what is safe and what is not?

I prefer to own my own body and to be able to put whatever chemical I see fit into it... than to have my body owned by the FDA who decide what chemicals I have the PRIVLEDGE to be allowed to put into it. If a drug needs to be tested for safety, let doctors, medical journals, and the medical community do the testing and publish the results in an open, competitive, and transparent process - one open to judgement by doctors and patients on how much risk THEY are willing to take. There doesn't need to be a safety dictatorship to command us all on what is the risk we should be allowed to take.

Prove this statement. Be specific instead of just waving your arms around.

It is not an immediatly proveable or disprovable statement, it is a subjective analysis of the facts. No one disagrees that drug costs are rising dramaticly, that is fact... no one disagrees that drug company profits are rising dramaticly, that is fact... No one disagrees that the drug companies make political contributions to politicians, that is a fact. No one disagrees that drug regulations and cost of compliance is rising, that is fact... No one disagrees that it now takes orders of magnitude more capital to produce a profitable drug now, than it did 50 years ago, that is fact.

Now, the question is, is the massive government beurocracy designed to protect the people, or is it designed to create a barrier to market that only a few massive-capital corporations can meet, and therefore to limit competition. Well, you feel that even though that FDA officials are appointed by politicians in the pockets of the big drug companies, the FDA by the virtue of being a government agency, are uncorrupted and tireless crusaders for our welfare. I, on the other hand, see the FDA being in the pocket of the drug companies, still continuing to increase and increase regulation, determine that there must be a profit motive to encouraging all the regulation... otherwise the drug companies would pay off politicians who reduce regulation instead of ones who do. It is a completly reasonable, and in fact most reasonable analysis of the situation to conclude that the drug companies are working with the FDA to create barriers to market so that only big-pharma can afford to do buisness.

Linkage

From the link:
Earlier this month, EFF's FLAG Project submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to DHS seeking more details about the ATS data-mining program, but the agency has not yet disclosed the requested information.

For EFF's full comments to DHS:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/ats/ats_comments.pdf

For the DHS Federal Register notice announcing ATS:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-9026.htm

There's no need to rely on any one person for the penalties for or definition of copyright infringement -- go to the source (or Cornell's helpful pseudo-mirror). I agree with you that there may be penalties for unintended infringement.

I also believe that making available copyrighted materials for distribution probably isn't illegal since there is no law that I know of that makes attempting to infringe a civil or criminal offense.

"Attempt" is not a civil wrong. That is, you can't sue in civil court for "attempted assault" -- you either have an assault, or some other theory. On the flip side, "attempt" can attach to any crime (well, there are probably exceptions that don't immediately jump to mind). There's no need for a statute against "attempted assault" because there's a general definition for "attempt" and another for "assault." In theory, there could be a prosecution "attempted copyright infringement" though I can't immediately think of any set of facts where it would happen in practice.

So saying you'll make a copy for someone isn't illegal. It becomes illegal when you actually make the copy.

I think that statement is true, in the same way that saying you're going to murder someone isn't illegal; you actually have to make a significant step towards the comission of the crime.

High end: If Steven Kings books get copied and sold to all of China, the damage could easily be worth far more than 30k.

The copyright holder always has the option of recovering actual damages instead of statutory damages, and in the case of the Steven King example they'd probably opt for that. Statutory damages are intended for cases where going out and determining exactly how many copies were made and what the market value of each was is infeasible or not worth the time of the plaintiff and defendant.

But yes, the statutory amount seems high here. Perhaps a low of $750 for all copyright violations stemming from one linked set of actions might be reasonable (so if someone puts up 400 albums to share, the RIAA can either go with $750 total or figure out real damages, rather than being allowed to go for 400 * $750 = $300000 without justification). Note that statutory damages are often intentionally somewhat higher than real damages, as they have punitive effects in addition to simply correcting the damages done; while $750 is a high amount for most file sharer's real impact on sales, it's not completely out of the realm of reasonable as a punitive figure (the law, of course, already operates under the assumption that file sharing is wrong and should be punished).

For more info (statutory amounts are in (c)(1)) see:
http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate. cgi?WAISdocID=19805814327+0+0+0&WAISaction=retriev e

Their argument is likely to be that she _can_ be held responsible for people who downloaded the song from her computer, because then she's distributing it herself. What's interesting about this is, if she proves that song downloads are only worth .70 cents, the RIAA will have to prove that 1000 people downloaded the song from here to get their $700/song, and they'll have to do that for each song.

They won't have to prove any such thing. The $750/work is specified by law as the minimum statutory damages for copyright infringement, it's not a number that the RIAA came up with or needs to justify. The argument is about whether the law is an unreasonable violation of due process; the RIAA aren't the ones who picked the figure.

See (c)(1):
http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate. cgi?WAISdocID=19805814327+0+0+0&WAISaction=retriev e

The RIAA is indirectly arguing (through its high damage calculations) that if you upload a file, then you are responsible for its exponential growth in sharing

The RIAA is not doing any damage calculations. The law specifies $750 as the minimum statutory damage. See (c)(1) at http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate. cgi?WAISdocID=19805814327+0+0+0&WAISaction=retriev e

Well, at first blush, the disparity between cost and damages is enourmous. It doesn't really seem reasonable. But the RIAA bases such things on the premise that if I download a copy of a song, I will only ever have the one copy. Their whole focus is to ensure somehow that I get one copy and only one copy for my money, and that I cannot simply crank out a thousand or more copies for myself, even if my intent is benign. They don't seem to understand that as technology has advanced, their ability to control content has slipped slowly away. DRM is the last shriek of the dying -- trying to control the content even when it is out of their control.

So they see $750 as a justifiable figure

They may or may not, but the case isn't about what the RIAA thinks. $750 is specified by law as the minimum statutory per-work damage. See 17USC504 (c)(1) at:

http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate. cgi?WAISdocID=19805814327+0+0+0&WAISaction=retriev e

The challenge isn't to a random RIAA-picked number, it's to the law itself for specifying an arguably unreasonable amount in statutory damages.

Quoting from the "Background and Purpose" section of the proposal:
Current CBP regulations require air carriers to electronically transmit passenger arrival manifests to CBP no later than 15 minutes after the departure of the aircraft from any place outside the United States (19 CFR 122.49a(b)(2)) and passenger departure manifests no later than 15 minutes prior to departure of the aircraft from the United States (19 CFR 122.75a(b)(2)).
...
The identification of a high-risk passenger soon after the aircraft becomes airborne may result in the diversion of the aircraft to a U.S. port other than the original destination or the return of the aircraft to the port of departure (referred to as a ``turnback'').

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061 800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-6237.htm (linked from) http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a060714c. html

I don't like the idea of Mr. Lawabider being mistaken for Mr. Terror and being denied boarding, but the end result remains that either person isn't getting where he wants to go. (He just doesn't get there sooner.) Then again, it is a slippery slope they're treading on.

>I will say this, though - If I'm wrong, and you find some nuance in the document I missed, please post and inform me.

Firefox isn't opening the link at regulations.gov, so let's take a look at the GPO web site. "Under both options, the carrier will not permit the boarding of a passenger unless the passenger has been cleared by CBP." Shortly thereafter, discussing ships, they explain the purpose is "to prevent vessel departures with a high-risk passenger or crew member onboard." I can't read those as anything but a requirement for government clearance before someone can leave the country by common carrier.

You're quite right to insist on primary sources as opposed to commentary by people with agendas.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cg i?position=all&page=40035&dbname=2006_register

(on the next page, but that page starts the section)

"Sections
4012 and 4071 of the IRTPA require
DHS to issue regulations and procedures
to allow for pre-departure vetting of
passengers onboard aircraft arriving in
and departing from the United States
and of passengers and crew onboard
vessels arriving in and departing from
the United States. This proposed rule is
designed to implement these important
IRTPA requirements and to further
enhance national security and the
security of the air and vessel travel
industries in accordance with the ATSA
and EBSA (both of which formed the
statutory basis for the APIS regulations)."

Okay, so we have a story on a political website ("Friends of Liberty") with a link only to published comments by another political website ("PapersPlease.org") concerning a proposal where the original RFP was posted July 14 of this year. Where was the outrage then, where was the irate Slashdot article then?

Could it possibly be that this regulation would not have the effect that the far left claims that it would have?

If you read the regulation proposal, what this regulation change would actually do is require manifests to be transmitted to US Customs before the aircraft pushes back from the gate, rather than 15 minutes after takeoff (which is the current regulation), so that DHS can have do-not-fly list passengers removed from the flight before it takes off rather than causing a possible situation in the air.

This attempt at political chicanery on Slashdot's part is so transparent it's laughable.

As I read the regulations, if perfectly legal for me to contract a special messenger to deliver private mail. In fact, it's written into Title 18, Part I, Chapter 83, section 1696(c).

Post Office Publication 542 (pdf) makes repeated mention to Title 39, mostly in Chapter 3 (which is all sections starting with 3xx). You will notice that the US Code site does not list Chapter 3. Since I can not find reference to them, I'm forced to assume one of three things:
1. they've been repealed
2. they've been updated somewhere
3. the government is intentionally hiding them

It's really hard to follow the laws if you can't read what they are, and I mistrust an organization who can only claim (same pdf as before) things in their favor while pointing to legislation now purged from the lawbooks to back it up.

As I read the regulations, if perfectly legal for me to contract a special messenger to deliver private mail. In fact, it's written into Title 18, Part I, Chapter 83, section 1696(c).

Post Office Publication 542 (pdf) makes repeated mention to Title 39, mostly in Chapter 3 (which is all sections starting with 3xx). You will notice that the US Code site does not list Chapter 3. Since I can not find reference to them, I'm forced to assume one of three things:
1. they've been repealed
2. they've been updated somewhere
3. the government is intentionally hiding them

It's really hard to follow the laws if you can't read what they are, and I mistrust an organization who can only claim (same pdf as before) things in their favor while pointing to legislation now purged from the lawbooks to back it up.

For people who try not to judge until they've seen their stuff first-hand, here's a direct (PDF!) link to the original text of the bill from the US Government Printing Office: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5122enr.txt.pdf

But I'd still like to know where the Firewire requirement for any type of box has been mandated.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/ 47cfr76.640.pdf

It only applies to HD cable boxes (if your previous cable boxes were non-HD, that would be why they didn't include FireWire), but it's been in effect for ~2.5 years now. On mine, local HD channels and most non-HD digital-cable channels are available over FireWire as MPEG-2 transport streams with AC3 audio.

(On a related note, the recently-released MythTV 0.20 seems to have improved its FireWire recording, too. I've seen fewer glitches in recordings made since I upgraded from 0.19.)

"I remember when Windows 95 came out, with its weak, obviously-an-afterthought "web browser" (IE 3.0)", ronkronk

It wasn't an afterthought it was a renamed Spyglass browser which they subsequently 'gave away' with Windows so as they wouldn't have to pay royaltees. After failing to buyout Netscape and get an exclusive deal from NCSA they settled with Spyglass.

"It took them some time to get it right, but eventually IE took over", ronkronk

IE took over by billg strong arming the OEMs to take Netscape off the desktop. Can't you remember what the MS AOL court case was all about.

"AOL's March 12 and October 28, 1996 agreements with Microsoft also guaranteed that, for all practical purposes, Internet Explorer would be AOL's browser of choice"

"Compaq was the only one to fully commit itself to Microsoft's terms for distributing and promoting Internet Explorer to the exclusion of Navigator"

"now it's becoming more and more obvious that they're taking security every bit as seriously as they once took the Internet", ronkronk

Like as an after thought.

"within a few years, we're going to see some really damn secure stuff coming out of Microsoft", ronkronk

I've heard exactly the same kind of thing when NT came out.

"In the meantime, Firefox exploits are cropping up at a seemingly greater pace. This worries me. It looks like a repeat of 1997, when Netscape lost huge amounts of ground to IE by producing a product that wasn't as good as the competition.", ronkronk

Netcape was never inferior to IE. As this test proves. The MS stratagy at the time was to make it a jolting experience for the enduser. Why are you trolling slashdot with patently false pro-MS propaganda.

"We will bind the (Windows) shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience" .

Firefox running on a more secure OS as standard user are not as serious as bugs in IE running on WinVista. You see as MS embedded the browser directly into the OS so as it couldn't be removed.

Secondly Netscape lost ground because of backroom shenagenans by billg an Co. After threatening to withold technical information, they offered to carve up the market between them or else they would cut off Netscapes oxygen supply.

`The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling season.'

"Microsoft representative J. Allard had told Barksdale that the way in which the two companies concluded the meeting would determine whether Netscape received the RNA API immediately or in three months.'"

`After Netscape refused Microsoft's offer to divide the browser market, Microsoft embarked on a predatory campaign to eliminate the browser threat'

`In subsequent meetings in the Fall of 1995, Microsoft explained to Intel that its strategy would be to kill Netscape and control Internet standards'

`in exchange for steering clear of the Windows browser segment Netscape would be made a preferred Microsoft partner'

"I'll be telling clients to go with Microsoft products, because they're more secure than F/OSS. And I don't want to see that happen.", ronkronk

I'm really an Open Source advocate except for bla, bla, bla

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/2613-1.htm
http://www.theregister.co.u

"I remember when Windows 95 came out, with its weak, obviously-an-afterthought "web browser" (IE 3.0)", ronkronk

It wasn't an afterthought it was a renamed Spyglass browser which they subsequently 'gave away' with Windows so as they wouldn't have to pay royaltees. After failing to buyout Netscape and get an exclusive deal from NCSA they settled with Spyglass.

"It took them some time to get it right, but eventually IE took over", ronkronk

IE took over by billg strong arming the OEMs to take Netscape off the desktop. Can't you remember what the MS AOL court case was all about.

"AOL's March 12 and October 28, 1996 agreements with Microsoft also guaranteed that, for all practical purposes, Internet Explorer would be AOL's browser of choice"

"Compaq was the only one to fully commit itself to Microsoft's terms for distributing and promoting Internet Explorer to the exclusion of Navigator"

"now it's becoming more and more obvious that they're taking security every bit as seriously as they once took the Internet", ronkronk

Like as an after thought.

"within a few years, we're going to see some really damn secure stuff coming out of Microsoft", ronkronk

I've heard exactly the same kind of thing when NT came out.

"In the meantime, Firefox exploits are cropping up at a seemingly greater pace. This worries me. It looks like a repeat of 1997, when Netscape lost huge amounts of ground to IE by producing a product that wasn't as good as the competition.", ronkronk

Netcape was never inferior to IE. As this test proves. The MS stratagy at the time was to make it a jolting experience for the enduser. Why are you trolling slashdot with patently false pro-MS propaganda.

"We will bind the (Windows) shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience" .

Firefox running on a more secure OS as standard user are not as serious as bugs in IE running on WinVista. You see as MS embedded the browser directly into the OS so as it couldn't be removed.

Secondly Netscape lost ground because of backroom shenagenans by billg an Co. After threatening to withold technical information, they offered to carve up the market between them or else they would cut off Netscapes oxygen supply.

`The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling season.'

"Microsoft representative J. Allard had told Barksdale that the way in which the two companies concluded the meeting would determine whether Netscape received the RNA API immediately or in three months.'"

`After Netscape refused Microsoft's offer to divide the browser market, Microsoft embarked on a predatory campaign to eliminate the browser threat'

`In subsequent meetings in the Fall of 1995, Microsoft explained to Intel that its strategy would be to kill Netscape and control Internet standards'

`in exchange for steering clear of the Windows browser segment Netscape would be made a preferred Microsoft partner'

"I'll be telling clients to go with Microsoft products, because they're more secure than F/OSS. And I don't want to see that happen.", ronkronk

I'm really an Open Source advocate except for bla, bla, bla

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/2613-1.htm
http://www.theregister.co.u

Take flying lessons. Really. It's a lot safer. If you're 16 years old and your instructor signs off, you can even fly solo.

Take flying lessons. Really. It's a lot safer. If you're 16 years old and your instructor signs off, you can even fly solo.

A properly written piece of legislation wouldn't prevent that.
I have no idea whether or not the proposed bill in the USA is properly written though ;)

I've read the proposal, and it would prevent what I just described. Can you propose any way of writing the legislation that wouldn't have that effect?

The issue is not giving YouTube faster access to customers at a price, it's prioritizing their traffic over providers that don't pay - and thus penalizing the providers that don't pay, due to the fact that bandwidth is finite.
The situation you describe wouldn't cause that - in fact, it would be better for everyone, because traffic to YouTube that would normally slow down regular internet traffic would instead be going through the dedicated link.

The system I described and the one you describe differ only in perspective, not in substance. In my system some content providers pay one or more ISPs to get faster access to the ISPs' customers than the non-paying providers; in your system non-paying providers get slower access than paying providers: these are just different ways of saying the same thing. Either way there is some fixed amount of total upstream bandwidth available (the upper limit of which is determined by how much the ISP gets paid, by customers and content providers alike), of which paying providers get priority over XX% and non-paying providers split the balance. It doesn't really matter if the ISP has a separate physical link to YouTube or simply reserves a portion of its (possibly expanded) upstream bandwidth to give YouTube priority (or exclusive) access. In any event, the current proposal doesn't make any distinction between the two, and I don't see how it could.

The proposal has other issues as well, such as (apparently) requiring every "broadband network provider" to provide equal access to every "broadband network", not just hosts on the Internet. Section 4(a)(1): "Each broadband network provider has the duty to enable users to utilize their broadband service to access all lawful content, applications, and services available over broadband networks, including the Internet". A "broadband network" is defined as any network capable of transmitting at least 200 kbps of user-"designed" or user-chosen data "in at least one direction." The definitions of "broadband network" and "broadband network provider" include networks provided free-of-charge by private operators; they could probably even be construed to include internal LANs if one were so inclined. I really don't want to be forced to provide Internet access to everyone connecting to my wireless access point, particularly at speeds equivalent to local network access to services on my PC -- but, as I read it, that's what this proposal would require.

As far as section 4(a)(7) goes (the heart of Net Neutrality; prohibits discrimination between data streams of the same type), it could be easily bypassed by using a proprietary protocol and defining that as the "type" of data prioritized: prioritize all YouTube Video streams (playable with a special plugin), not all HTTP; prioritize all Skype streams, not all VoIP. It wouldn't matter what the actual origin of the data is, just that the stream type can be linked to a paying content provider. Who cares which IP YouTube is streaming videos from as long as only YouTube can create YouTube Video streams?

Disclaimer: IANAL, and this is not legal advice.

Pedophilia may not be a crime. However, as a potential employer, it would not violate the law to discriminate against a pedophile.

In case anyone was curious about how a court in Brazil would go about asking for production of US documents in a criminal case, here is your answer. This treaty entered into force on February 21, 2001.

The following looks like the law they are trying to stand behind. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cg i?TITLE=47&PART=73&SECTION=3542&TYPE=TEXT
Authority may be granted, on a temporary basis, in extraordinary circumstances requiring emergency operation to serve the public interest. such situations include: emergencies involving danger to life and property; a national emergency proclaimed by the President or the Congress of the U.S.A and; the continuance of any war in which the United States is engaged, and where such action is necessary for the national defense or security or otherwise in furtherance of the war effort.

"The very brief net neutrality description used by the pollsters is somewhat misleading insofar as it suggests that net neutrality would bar Internet Service Providers from selling faster service than is available today."

Heres a link to the actual text of the bill as it stands. PDF from GPO : S2453 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s2453is.txt.pdf

(4) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. A person or entity
making a call for telemarketing purposes must provide the called party
with the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or entity
on whose behalf the call is being made, and a telephone number or
address at which the person or entity may be contacted. The telephone
number provided may not be a 900 number or any other number for which
charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges.
direct C&P from
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cg i?TITLE=47&PART=64&SECTION=1200&TYPE=TEXT

Since when are business models subject to patent rights?

Up until 1998, business methods were thought to be so called unstatutory subject matter, meaning that the laws governing patents did not allow for business methods to be patented. However, in State Street Bank & Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the court found:

Since the 1952 Patent Act, business methods have been, and should have been, subject to the same legal requirements for patentability as applied to any other process or method.

Since then business method patents have become very common in the US and around the world.

HR 666, (see link) http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=104_cong_bills&docid=f:h666rfs.txt.pdf already makes this behaviour from the gov legal. On a side note, for those that didn't read the story, the judge overturned an appeal, and sentence has already been given.... Hacked PC was not accepted as a defense.

He does not support any form of Stem Cell research regaurdless of the method

You are either a liar or severely ignorant. See, e.g., Bush's support of umbilical-cord stem cell research.