Slashdot Mirror

Anyone remember the The Iraq Liberation Act or the president that signed it

Read into the Patriot Act a little more before you assume the privacy of your phone cannot be compromised for no reason at all.

e.g.
Somebody without a judge's approval has a wiretap on their phone that you do not even know comes across the street to use your phone, you are now subject to a wire tap as well...without an order or review from a judge.

When do we get to vote on how the military handles housekeeping?

How about every two or six years? Remember, the Congress approves how the military spends its money, and they define the laws by which the military must operate.

Bring this issue up to your representative's office, and let them know that we don't approve the lax I.T. policies. Or how about write to someone on the Armed Services Oversight Committee, inform them that things like this are taking place, that national security is at risk. If they can shut down Los Alamos over floppy disks, then something needs to change here.

When do we get to vote on how the military handles housekeeping?

How about every two or six years? Remember, the Congress approves how the military spends its money, and they define the laws by which the military must operate.

Bring this issue up to your representative's office, and let them know that we don't approve the lax I.T. policies. Or how about write to someone on the Armed Services Oversight Committee, inform them that things like this are taking place, that national security is at risk. If they can shut down Los Alamos over floppy disks, then something needs to change here.

1. A senator and a member of the house get togather and write a bill.

You really believe that? I was under the impression that they didn't bother to read most of the bills being voted on, much less write them.

Maybee I'm wrong in this case though. It's only 2 pages.

I have read through the actual act. It's 132 pages, but it reads fast, so anyone really interested could do likewise in a couple of hours. I have not read all the other laws and regulations it refers to. I have read through the 'Life and Liberty' summary of them though.

To answer your other question, it is my understanding that no, the FBI can not obtain library and customer records without a warrant. An investigator can ask but not demand the records without a warrant. There is something called a 'secret warrant' however, which does allow the investigator the ability to obtain the records and prevent the person(s) from whom they obtained the information from disclosing to the party whom they requested the documents on that they obtained the records. This is so that the person being investigated is not 'tipped off' that they are being investigated. It allows the investigator the chance to observe the person being investigated and further their investigation. These types of warrants have been in place at least since the 1970s (the USSC upheld their use in 1979)

There was a Draft proposal that never went before congress that would allow investigators the ability to obtain records without a warrant. That bill never became law and as I read it only applied to foriegners. I've read some very misleading statements on many sites that claim what you thought to be true. In the end, if you read the text and later interpretations of the act, a warrant is still needed. In the past couple of years the USSC has stated that a search of person or other material (read important to a case) is acceptable IF the material found would have been found anyway (such as a library willingly turning over the records upon being asked) or if a warrant would have been issued in any event and to obtained the warrant would have done irreparable and immediate harm to the investigation. In the case of library or customer records this could not be the case as the information would have been available after a warrant was obtained.

I heard (from a pilot, but it was 1995 when he told me this) that you can't use cell phones because you would be in range of a number of cell towers at the same time, which would mess up either your cell phone or the towers.

My guess is that problem has been solved by now.

curl -O -f "http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.c gi?position=all&page=H53[48-74]&dbname=2004_record "

curl -O -f "http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.c gi?position=all&page=H53[48-74]&dbname=2004_record "

curl -O -f "http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.c gi?position=all&page=H53[48-74]&dbname=2004_record "

curl -O -f "http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.c gi?position=all&page=H53[48-74]&dbname=2004_record "

where is the FBI actually using this to spy on 'average people'?

You know it is a little difficult finding examples of this, what with the gag order and all (see Section 215). Still though, here's the primary example offered up by most media outlets, and here's another, more obscure example from my home city.

Great idea lowering the voting age to 14 or 15. Spears and Aguillera in 2008!

By the time Spears hits 35 (which is the minimum age you need to be to be president) they'd have lost their cred with the teen crowd :-)

There was a time when a 21yr old was a "callow youth" not worth listening to, but these days they can vote. So why not push the voting age down lower? Kids are a lot smarter than you think they are.

The reality of Washington is that big business is taking over more and more to the point that it is becoming the fourth branch of power. Unfortunately bigbusiness an unchecked branch and one that has very few "guidelines" as to how it operates. The corporate world lacks checks and balances, and is not elected. It controls or seriously influences most elections now through cash. Without some serious changes to the election system, their control will continue to strengthen over time. Bush has too much dirt on him to be a viable President in the next election. If he had actually contributed some far reaching advances to the people of our country (besides the wealthiest few), or somehow actually executed Iraq with political skill, he might have had enough political clout here and abroad to be a viable contender. If he does get elected this time, then our country will have a huge uphill battle globally (except for the richest few people). Realistically, voting for Bush is a vote for Microsoft's illegal business practices, greater amounts of pollution in the atmosphere (and in our children, e.g. lead, arsenic and others), a widening economic gap between the top few percent and everyone else and more unregulated business can do what it wants, consequences be damned.

The choices are simple. You may think you have something to gain, but what about your children and your grandchildren. IMO, if you do not care, that says enough about you anyway. If you do care about their future, Bush has to go. If you do not care about the children, any one of a number of excuses might apply for you. Since (if you do not care to value them first), you are unwilling to invest in their future, how about you do not get any of the benefit of their future tax base outside of what you put in for them (less than $2000 per year per child in the US IIRC). Try no Social Security or Health benefits for you as you get older, no economic benefits from stocks you own that their purchases/employment benefit, no future paved roads for you to ride on... Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, you may not have been the one to bring them into this world, but they will be the ones paying for your tax burdens, driving the economy you live off of with their spending and providing care to you in your old age (unless you plan to off yourself at some point soon.)

It is just plain and simple, Bush and his right wing are not Pro-Family. That would mean being pro-child and that would mean the children come before the big business. They almost never vote that way (none to a few votes arguably that I am aware of) and I do not expect them to suddenly change. Anti-Abortion does not mean pro-family. It just means that women do not have a choice on abortion. Pro-church is definitely not pro-child or pro-family. It is only pro-church. I have seen numerous things from the current group and many in the same team who are pro-church, pro-life and pro-business, but I have seen next to nothing from this group that is pro-family, pro-child or pro-citizen in a long time.

BTW, if anyone knows, is it a joke that Guiness is considering putting GW's plan to pardon the illegal immigrants in the US as the largest pardon in history or is it real?

InnerWeb

Only congress can declare war, and they haven't. So technically the US is not at war.

Ah, but Congress did. Public Law 107-243 authorizes the President to use force against Iraq.

Which takes us to the discussion about whether or not an "authorization of force" is the same as "declaring war." None other than Democratic Senator Joseph Biden says there is no Constitutional difference: "For constitutional purposes, it's the same as the declaration of war. There is no constitutional difference between authorizing the president to use this kind of force and saying, 'We declare war.'"

"Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications."

technically, one-third of the US Government ...

One-third, in the sense of three branches of American government:

* Executive
* Legislative
* Judicial

That's the theory, anyway.

In practice, real power has centralized in the Imperial Presidency -- as demonstrated by e.g. the Nixon years, the Bush/Reagan years, and the Cheney/Bush years.

-kgj

Avenge the threats against his father ... disregard due to no links to supporting data and it contradicts the available evidence Joint Authorization and US Public Law 105-338 and UN Report on Subject (read all 17-pages :-) and UN Resolutions violated by Iraq (btw, each resolution had 'diplo-speak' as in "serious consequences" authorizing war - don't say the US did it without the UN ;-)

Look good to the world for booting Hussein. Opps, that didn't work out to[o] well. ... disregard due to no link(s) to supporting data ... BTW, it didn't work out too well in post-Nazi Europe/Japan either

Get a [childish expletive deleted]load of money to Halliburton and make him and Cheney some big ass bucks. Didn't you know that Bush also owns a large amount of Halliburton stock? ... disregard due to there being no evidence that Bush Jr. ownes any Halliburton stock Bush 2003 Tax Return ... perform further research with respect to Cheney due to an "it's a stretch" connection Cheney 2003 Tax Return ... and also here leading to:

The forms Thursday showed he collected $162,392 in deferred compensation [think 401k - therefore this is not the big bad Halliburton connection you claim] from Halliburton Co., the Dallas-based energy services company he headed until Aug. 16, 2000. Cheney elected in 1998 to recoup over five years a portion of the money he made in 1999 as chief executive officer of Halliburton ... SUGGESTION: you should chat with some HR compensation folk who can explain this other "deferred compensation" plan (its the 'other' 401k the HR types don't talk about to individual contributors). Most companies have this 'other' 401k plan - lucrative but very restrictive tax-wise - perhaps almost like a blind-trust. However, IANAL also IANACPA

From Christopher Hitchens' review of "Unfairenheit 9/11":

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism . Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists , one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States ... (Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945)

... and still more from "Orwell's Notes on Nationalism" ... thank you Chris Hitchens from tickling my intellect such that I dug for more info ... love the internet

The Posse Comitatus Act is what currently prevents the military from being used for law enforcement purposes.

CAE Defense Fund

ACLU

Only by sending me money now to my Nigerian Bank Account will you move from the Ruby to Emerald Level of the "Earn Money From Home By Sowing Patriot Act FUD (EMFHBSPFUD)" ... learn what these individuals have not yet learned.

You must act now!!!!

You must act now!!!!

You must act now!!!!

[HUMOR OFF :-(:-(:-(]

... link for those who have never bothered to read the PATRIOT Act source documentation

Finally, if you're going to cite a comment on a web site, as reliable as that is, please give a reference to it that is more then the URL to the whole site...

Actually, Part 15 of the FCC Rules outlines legal use of nearly every band in low-power situations.

They're very loose when you consider what we're talking about. You can broadcast on the 88-108MHz FM band so long as you keep yourself to a whisper. In fact, a "pirate" AM radio station on a college campus that manages to confine all of its signal to the campus area isn't breaking the law at all...

Everybody has the right to transmit on the FM radio band!

What, you don't believe me? Just go to your local Best Buy or Circuit City location and look at the iPod accessories. You'll see several models of battery powered FM transmitters. Yep, you can plug those into to your iPod and go, no FCC license required, but batteries are not included.

Of course, the catch is that it has to comply with some pretty low power limits but that's the point. You're only allowed to affect the radios in your immediate area, not to set up a major broadcaster that'd interfere with the already licensed stations.

See, everybody else has the right to hear what the licenced transmitters are putting out, and your right to broadcast falls when it comes into contact with their right to recieve.

Exactly. If you want to find out if your crypto implementation is secure, ask the US government. If they say yes, you've got bugs.


Depends who in the US government you ask. Groups like the US State Department, the Dept of Commerce, CSRC of the NIST and half of the NSA (who has two purposes - one to protect against foreign intelligent threats, and one to exploit against foreign intelligent adverseries.) they want to protect most of the US public (and NAFTA, G8, and NATO interests) - including US businesses - from foreign governments. These groups can give you an idea of what is likely secure as we know in the non-classified knowledge outside the cloak and dagger world of the NSA, GCHQ, CSE, etc.

Mind you, I'm not sure why anyone would need to ask permission to export a public standard like AES. I'm pretty sure there aren't any secrets happening there.

AES was selected through a very open public process, so no knowledge about AES requires export permission. The US Dept of Commerce does regulate Dual-Use items (i.e. items that have a military/dangerous/hostile use and non-military use) including information security software implementations such as toolkits, libraries, and binaries (and object code). Humanly readable source code is still somewhat in disupte, but based on some US state level court cases (Phil Karn and Bernstein) it appears that human readable source code is not regulated.

for this act see here 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the Unites States (section 2008 on page 87)

you just might get it. For some cases they already have put it into law: section 2008 on page 87/107

What? Saying what the government can do under the patriot act is illegal?

Given that the act itself is made publicly available by the justice department itself(warning: PDF), can we expect the DOJ to take action against itself in the near future?

*sigh*

According to these documents, again from the OMB, the Federal budget for FY2005 will be $2.4 trillion. According to the good ol' CIA World Factbook, the US GDP in 2002 was $10.45 trillion. Even without factoring in the 2.45% GDP growth rate the WFB lists, that means that next year's Federal budget is only 23% of the total GDP.

I could take the time to figure out the actual GDP is, and even throw in the numbers for state and local governments, but these numbers are close enough for Slashdot. Suffice to say, none of this supports the idea that the government drives the economy in any major way.

Bullshit. According to this page from the Office of Management and Budget, total government spending from all sources accounts for 28% of GDP in the US. Private spending accounts for the rest. So, again, go educate yourself on the basics of economics before spouting off on /.

Though I'm no regulatory expert in the matter, I've seen numerous unlicensed devices operating at 433 MHz. As long as they adhere to Part 15 of the FCC rules, they're likely okay.

The article notes this: The Federal Communications Commission points specifically to the Federal Communications Act of 1934, which says that "no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications" licensed by the government.

Here it is... knock yourself out!
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title26/title26.h tml

"the physical movement of all hardware and/or technical data to another country for any purpose, whether or not the hardware and/or technical data is explicitly listed on the Commerce Control List (CCL). It includes domestic disclosures of technical data and software to foreign nationals, and domestic transfers with the knowledge or intent that the transferred hardware, software, or technical data will be provided to a foreign party."

• Category 0 - Nuclear Materials, Facilities and Equipment and Misc
• Category 3 - Electronics
• Category 4 - Computers
• Category 7 - Navigation and Avionics
• Category 9 - Propulsion Systems, Space Vehicles and Related Equipment

• Export Administration Regulations
• BIS -- Policies and Regulations

Do the figures you cite include the massive governmental subsidies of highway systems? The Federal Highway Administration alone will spend more than $32 billion in FY 2005. This goes up to $36 billion next year and doesn't include the massive expenditures by state and local governments. That's tax money coming directly out of your pocket and mine.

There are many other non-obvious costs of cars, such as the fact that vast amounts of the space we live in is designed for use by cars instead of people.

High-speed rail is not necessarily the answer for California or anywhere else. Just remember that there is lot more to the cost of a car than the sticker price, insurance, repair costs, and fuel.

Because there's nothing else we should spend that much money on.

Page 87 of 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States

[De-uppercased the title to avoid /. shouting]

Some research has been about USDTV's operation in Utah and they appear to be using channels that have been allocated to the "Utah State Board of Regents", which is the state board responsible for overseeing education in Utah.

IANAL, but according to FCC regulations (47CFR73) "noncommercial educational broadcast stations will be licensed only to nonprofit educational organizations upon a showing that the proposed stations will be used primarily to serve the educational needs of the community; for the advancement of educational programs; and to furnish a nonprofit and noncommercial television broadcast service."

We feel USDTV might be in violation of these regulations and we've been searching for answers as to the nature of the agreement between the two entities. So far our efforts to contact them have not yeilded results. Does anyone have any understanding of how they are able to license this "non-commercial" bandwidth?

Credit for most of the research goes to Luke Jenkins. There's a complete history of the research he's been doing to get to the bottom of this matter here: http://a.zzq.org/kulc/

Do you have any evidence of social programs being "decimated" over the past four years? As part of my business, I read the Federal Register every day, and it contains billions of dollars in grant announcements, for everything from after school programming to job training to affordable housing to PE programs

Defense spending has been astronomical and does not need to get any bigger.

Have you read Empire by Niall Ferguson? In it, he writes about the British Empire and its huge expeditures when it was the world's top dog. The fact is that the United States today spends a lower proportionate amount of money on defense than any other sole world superpower in history. Even then, our power is constrained by our committments. One can argue if those committments are good or bad; but the fact is that the United States spends little relative to other superpowers through history.

Of course, those two items are red herrings compared to your main point, the the false-choice that the United States will either allow wire tapping and become an instant police state or disallow it and be free. I agree that wire tapping should only occur under order of a judge.

The civil libertarians realize what none of the tin-foil hat paranoiacs on /. do. This does nothing at all to expand the legal authority of the FBI or anyone else to tap communications. The same laws (and the same amendments to the U.S. Constitution) still make it a serious pain in the a$$ to get a wiretap order. This proposal simply would have the FCC impose standards on the infrastructure so that once the legal hurdles are overcome, technical ones don't halt an investigation.

Obviously, the first step in defending our rights and freedoms is vigilance. Everyone give yourself a pat on the back for vigilance.

The next and essential step is actually identifying the real problem. Here the problem is not that the proposal will "dramatically expand the scope of the agency's wiretap powers," because it can't. First, no law specifically authorizes the FBI's wiretap powers, but the gov'ts. Second, the FCC has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to define when law enforcement can or cannot tap someone's communications. Third, it it was such a realistic threat, it would have already happened, as such laws and regulations have been implemented in the past.

To protect your rights, you must know your rights and understand the system, so that you know when you're really threatened and how and where to direct your energy. Read before you (continue to) rant:

1. Things like this are already required as explained in this summary of this law (remember CALEA from 1994?)!

2. The authority to wiretap anyone's communication is governed not by the FCC but by this amendment to the Constitution (with informative analysis) and this statute.

This is a threat to your ISP service bill and the quality of the services and software, not your constitutional rights. I don't want to live in a market where all communications products have legally mandated back doors, either. But not because I'm afraid the FBI (or NSA or MS or anyone) will then be able to eavesdrop on everything I do. They lack the resources, the skills, and the authority to do that whether the FCC accepts this proposal or not.

Not to say it's necessarily a good idea, but contrary to the spin in the article (and here on /.), this proposal does nothing at all to expand the legal authority of the FBI or anyone else to tap communications. The same laws (and the same amendments to the U.S. Constitution) still make it a serious pain in the a$$ to get a wiretap order. This proposal simply would have the FCC impose standards on the infrastructure so that once the legal hurdles are overcome, technical ones don't halt an investigation. This has been done before without turning the US into a facist state. Obviously, the first step in defending our rights and freedoms is vigilance. Everyone (even C|Net) give yourself a pat on the back for vigilance, even if you've missed the real point and mis-stated the law in alarmist fashion (like C|Net). The next and essential step is actually identifying the real problem. Here the problem is not that the proposal will "dramatically expand the scope of the agency's wiretap powers," because it can't. First, no law specifically authorizes the FBI's wiretap powers, but the gov'ts. Second, the FCC has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to define when law enforcement can or cannot tap someone's communications. Third, it it was such a realistic threat, it would have already happened, as such laws and regulations have been implemented in the past. To protect our rights, we must know our rights and understand the system, so that we know when we're really threatened and how and where to direct our energy. Read before you (continue to) rant: 1. Things like this are already required as explained in of (remember CALEA from 1994?)! 2. The authority to wiretap anyone's communication is governed not by the FCC but by to the Constitution (with informative analysis) and . This is a threat to your ISP service bill and the quality of the services and software, not your constitutional rights. I don't want to live in a market where all communications products have legally mandated back doors, either. But not because I'm afraid the FBI (or NSA or MS or anyone) will then be able to eavesdrop on everything I do. They lack the resources, the skills, and the authority to do that whether the FCC accepts this proposal or not.

This really burns me.

As a geek who is into manufacturing, I was listening to some of the international trade speechifying on CSPAN the other day, and heard the following particularly relevant tale from Rep DeFazio of Oregon. (Quote courtesy of a quick search of the congressional record)

I have a small company in my district called Videx. They developed a new kind of scanning technology. They developed an electronic lock. They are selling in 44 countries, including, their mistake, China, where they were selling about a $1 million a year. But it turns out, they say in China if you bring in intellectual property within 24 hours it is counterfeited and for sale.

And the Videx company had followed all the laws and protections, went to the trouble of getting supposed Chinese protection and patents and all that. One day they found their entire company had been cloned in China including their Web site. In fact, the Chinese, the fake Chinese Videx, had gone them one up. They had a little fake American flag waving at the top of their Web site, this Chinese company.

They even copied and translated into Chinese the U.S. copyright and patents on their software. They did not make a very good product, the company found out, because they started getting product support calls from people who thought they were clients of the U.S. Videx, but were actually clients of the phony Chinese Videx. This happens time and time again.

For the full transcript, go here

- Dave

The only way I see to use this device is to buy a CD, and if I can't rip it, I'll have to [break the law and] download the MP3-file via file-sharing.

The copyright owner does not have any right to prevent you from listening to the music on the CD you've purchased, nor to require you to listen using only "approved" equipment. If you have to download the (mostly) equivalent bits on the internet in order to listen to the music you have purchased, so be it.

Even the DMCA does not override fair use, though media companies claim it does. The DMCA, U.S. Public Law 105-304, specifically amends 17 U.S.C. 1201 to state:

Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

I accidentally linked to an otherwise fascinating bill awarding congressional gold medal to Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. The correct links:

Text

PDF

I accidentally linked to an otherwise fascinating bill awarding congressional gold medal to Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. The correct links:

Text

PDF

The actual text of the bill.

And in PDF

It's only 5 pages long and generously spaced, so it shouldn't take you long (on the off chance you'd rather read the actual bill rather than than just arguing based on the posting.)

The actual text of the bill.

And in PDF

It's only 5 pages long and generously spaced, so it shouldn't take you long (on the off chance you'd rather read the actual bill rather than than just arguing based on the posting.)

I often see the posts on /. generally stating that there ought to be a procedure for the public to raise issues of prior art before the USPTO grants a patent. Well, guess what? there is such a procedure. And it is very very simple.

37 C.F.R. 1.291 gives members of the public the right to protest a pending application by simply advising the patent office of any reason why a patent should not issue, including prior art. The essential aspects of this are that you must (a)correctly identify the application; (b)provide a concise explanation of the reason for the protest; and (c)provide a copy of the prior art your protest relies on.

So, rather that the usual pablovian reflex of ranting about this stuff on /. why not do something to help the USPTO do a better job?

Ready ... set ... go!

Whenever I'm in Manhattan near the Empire State Building my keyless entry is absolutely useless. I'm fairly confident that my poor little electronic key fob gets drowned out by the sheer volume of RF signals in the area. Probably the same sort of thing in Vegas only in a short burst.

Curse the FCC and part 15 of their rules.

Numbers:

US Budget Summary since 1789
Inflation calculator.

Okay, the largest budget deficit of the 1930's (Great Depression, New Deal) was about $3bn in 1939. That's about $31bn in 2002 dollars.

The largest budget deficit of the 1940's (WWII) was $55bn in 1943. That's about $585bn in 2002 dollars.

The largest deficit of the 1960's (Soviet Union, Space Race) was $25bn in 1968. That's $130bn in 2002 dollars.

The largest deficit in the 1980's (Soviet Union) was $221bn in 1986. That's $354bn in 2002 dollars.

The largest deficit of the 1990's (Iraq war?) was $290bn in 1992, which is $370bn in 2002 dollars.

The 2004 budget deficit is officially $521bn. However, that does not count the costs of war, which are $84bn in Iraq alone. All told, the current deficit is well over $600bn. Depending on the cost model, that equates to about $580bn 2002 dollars.

So in any case, the current US budget deficit is not larger than at least the one FDR carried, but its skirting damn close.

The problem with a debt is that eventually you have to pay it off. The FY 2004 budget is ~$2.23T, with a deficit of $0.44T. About $0.35T is going to net interest; by 2008 we will be paying close to half a trillion dollars a year on Treasury debt securities alone (Excel source). That's half a trillion dollars a year we can't use to shelter the homeless, feed the starving, cure the diseased, protect the abused, clean the environment, educate the ignorant.

Which of those are meritous is beyond the scope of my argument.