Slashdot Mirror

"What business of the federal government is it how many toilets are in my home? And if it wants to know, if it asks nicely I might tell it; if it threatens me with legal sanction for failing to reply, my response is "fuck you, you have neither moral nor Constitutional authority to do so."
--"

You read a LOT of Ayn Rand as a lonely, insecure teenager, didn't you?

As for the Constitutionality of the Census, Article 1, Section 2. I'll wait while you look it up in your copy of the Constitution.

What? You don't have a copy. I do. It's about US$3.00 from the Govt. Printing Office. Ask nicely and your Representative will likely send you one for free.

Thomas Jefferson and a few others who had a hand in creating the US, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution considered a census vital to the public interest. That'll be Article 1, Section 2, again. That's the first part after the Preamble .

Diverse courts, up to SCOTUS, have affirmed that the Census can ask whatever questions it feels germane to its mission.

There's a pretty good precis at the 2010 Census site.

As for the 'toilet' question. Statistics. Watching trends over the decades are very useful.

If you know how many toilets there are per person in Anytown, USA, you can statistically determine how many toilets there may be in ten, twenty, thirty years, which means that there will be a need for more water, because there will be more people, more houses (Fire Departments LIKE having lots of hydrants about the place. Makes it easier for them to fight fires.) and, potentially, more water treatment plants and sewage treatment plants.

OMG! SOCIALIZED FIRE DEPARTMENTS! SOCIALIZED CLEAN WATER! SOCIALIZED SEWAGE TREATMENT!

TEH HORRORZ!

So, the bottom line is, you just proved yourself to be one of those morons who got their Official Libertarian Panties in a wad over a legitimate question in the Census.

Please! Stop using the Internet, You're getting your stupid ALL OVER everything.

kthnxbai!

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report? DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman. WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.

My mistake, I was quoting Wegman. But as you see from the above, I don't think it makes much difference as the NAS agreed with Wegman!

Not quite: Dr. North agreed with the conclusion that Mann & al used a wrong methodology - something Mann had already admitted to and fixed long before the Wegman report. You should actually read the transcript from the Congressional hearing.

DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn't mean they are false.

"T-Mobile should have notified EZ Texting"

That would have required identifying that EZ Texting was the advertising agent, rather than Domains By Proxy (owner of record of all domains used by EZ Texting) or the advertiser themselves.

"which are a violation of their terms of service"

These terms?

You accept that the Service is provided for professional use only, and you agree that your use of the Website or Service shall not include (...) (e)ngaging in any other activity that Ez Texting believes could subject it to criminal liability or civil penalty/judgment.

This lone sentence is the sole reference to potential liability of advertisers on EZ Texting's networks. They don't even meet the FCC's minimum legal level of disclosure of potential legal liability, as described in 47 CFR 64.1200(g)(2).

"Blocking a spammer wouldn't create this lawsuit or publicity."

It would if EZ Texting were seeking legal precedent to allow them carte blanche access to mobile phone provider networks, one that allows them to avoid legal obligations and liabilities.

Um....where? If you mean the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" bill, it is available here. If you mean the amendment "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010", the text is available at THOMAS, from the Library of Congress. Where does it say that?

I'm not saying that I know that they do or do not include a provision for 17 year olds to issue IRS forms, but that doesn't sound right. And a quick search for the value $600 doesn't come up with anything like the above.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1586eas2.txt.pdf

The untitled version of HR 1586 does have content.

Not any more, it doesn't - clicking on that link gets a complaint that your query has timed out (perhaps not surprising, given the last component of the URL - C?c111:./temp/~c1117DsjMP). However, if you go to the page for HR 1586, you can click on the link for "XXXXXXAct ofXXXX (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)" to see it in HTML, or the PDF link, which has a slightly less temporary-looking URL.

As Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." What she means is that nobody could learn what was in the bill by reading it.

It seems more likely to me that she meant that ...

Ok, you have a point there. Let me fix that:

As Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." What she knows is that nobody could learn what was in the bill by reading it.

Those in disagreement can download that 3.8 MB PDF and read it before commenting.

You ignored the central and indisputable point of my comment, that modern U.S. legislation is incomprehensible. Instead, you focused on the unknowable and irrelevant question of what Nancy Pelosi intended to mean.

You can often tell what service a callsign is in by its format. All Amateur calls in the US are of the form:

N1A
N1AA
N1AAA
NA1A
NA1AA

Where N is N, W, or K, and 1 is 0-9. There are also ones that start with AA-AL followed by a digit and 1-2 letters. There are tons of special ones for territories, etc, but they are typically of the same form. I think the only exception is that an 'X' can't follow the number (that denotes as experimental station).

47 CFR 2.302 defines the callsign formats.

Indeed they do, or maybe they're just bored.

I believe this is the relevant statute

18USC709

Whoever, except with the written permission of the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, knowingly uses the words ``Federal
Bureau of Investigation'' or the initials ``F.B.I.'', or any colorable
imitation of such words or initials, in connection with any
advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play,
motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, in a manner
reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such advertisement,
circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play, motion picture,
broadcast, telecast, or other production, is approved, endorsed, or
authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

So, unless Wikipedia is pretending to "be" the FBI, this is just a waste of taxpayer money.

You mean like this one?

If you're going to call someone out for being wrong... try being right.

I had the impression that you could, without a license, transmit on frequencies that require a license so long as it's extremely low power, to the point that beyond X number of feet (300?) no meaningful reception of your transmission is possible.

Nope, not as a general rule. What you're thinking of are the small FM radio band transmitters (such as used for iPod to car radio), which the FCC allows under a specific rule (47 CFR 15.239) which limits their output. No such rule is available for someone wanting to operate their own cell site. It's illegal, regardless of how low the power or how short the range. Another poster mentioned a Faraday cage; still illegal (even though you'd be unlikely to get caught).

Thank you for correcting my misperception about this. It sounds like the people running this demo would be wise to tread carefully to make sure they don't run afoul of the regulations. No one in their right mind wants a massive federal bureaucracy coming down on them. This may in fact be why AT&T isn't worried about taking their own action.

I had the impression that you could, without a license, transmit on frequencies that require a license so long as it's extremely low power, to the point that beyond X number of feet (300?) no meaningful reception of your transmission is possible.

Nope, not as a general rule. What you're thinking of are the small FM radio band transmitters (such as used for iPod to car radio), which the FCC allows under a specific rule (47 CFR 15.239) which limits their output. No such rule is available for someone wanting to operate their own cell site. It's illegal, regardless of how low the power or how short the range. Another poster mentioned a Faraday cage; still illegal (even though you'd be unlikely to get caught).

I disagree that wifi data meets the definition of a broadcast; rather, it is a non-public communication transmitted without encryption. The only definitions of 'broadcast' I could find at the FCC website were related to specific broadcast services (AM, FM, TV, etc)

47CFR73 Sec. 73.14 AM broadcast definitions.
A broadcast station licensed for the dissemination of radio communications intended to be received by the public and operated on a channel in the AM broadcast band.

Also there are rules in the Amateur service (Part 97) that forbid broadcast transmissions intended for the public.

The crux of the biscuit is that broadcasts are, by definition, intended for public receipt. Wifi data is not intended for public receipt and the service under which Wifi equipment operates is not licensed as a broadcast service (it is unlicensed, in fact).

Remember back in the day when HBO, etc were transmitted in-the-clear over C band satellites? I could tune in and watch it with no trouble, but the law said even though it was transmitted in-the-clear you could not legally watch it unless you were a subscriber.

Did you know that the old-school pagers used in-the-clear transmissions? I could've easily transcribed every single pager transmission in the greater Richmond area (as well as ones intended for those with 'satellite' pagers that worked nationwide). It would not have been legal, however.

How about the old 49 MHz cordless phones/baby monitors, analog cell phones, etc? They were all in the clear, and special federal legislation was enacted to prevent eavesdropping - they forced scanner manufacturers to block the analog cell frequencies.

What google did by collecting anything other that the SSID was equivalent to transcribing private pager data and making it publicly available - that certainly would be illegal.

References:
Communications Act of 1934, as Amended (pdf)

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs2-wire.htm

Ah, finally, someone with some sort data to back up their rhetoric. I think yours is the 20th response to what I've posted here, and the previous 19 had no basis for their assertions. Reasonable debate at last ;-)

New GE plants are tested by the FDA, the NIH, and the EPA.

I got this from "Whole Earth Discipline" by Stewart Brand, page 127. http://books.google.com/books?ct=result&id=1tTtAAAAMAAJ&dq=stewart+brand+whole+earth&q=national+institutes

He seems to be wrong. The NIH has no direct responsibility or authority over foodstuffs. They do regulate gene therapy for humans, but that's completely different thing.

Here's the real story:
http://www.fda.gov/food/biotechnology/default.htm

The FDA considers GM foods basically safe, and looks over safety tests performed by the company selling the product to ensure they have not overlooked potential dangers. In cases that new proteins or pesticide resistance the burden of proof is much higher then swapping genes already in foodstuff.
The FDA compliance seems to be optional for plants. There was a proposed law to make it mandatory in 2001, but it never went through as far as I can tell. I guess the "war on terror" and economic downturn did it in. It is mandatory for animals however, and companies usually do submit to the FDA, if only for legal protection of following "best practices" if something does go wrong down the road.

The USDA/APHIS regulates new species, and participates in the process from the first stages of testing. Their primary concern is keeping a "superweed" from being created, and their tests and inspections reflect primarily that. Most notably for consumers, they requires data that

A detailed description of the differences in genotype between the regulated article and the nonmodified recipient organism. Include all scientific, common, or trade names, and all designations necessary to identify: the donor organism(s), the nature of the transformation system (vector or vector agent(s)), the inserted genetic material and its product(s), and the regulated article. ...Describe known and potential differences from the unmodified recipient organism that would substantiate that the regulated article is unlikely to pose a greater plant pest risk than the unmodified organism from which it was derived, including but not limited to: Plant pest risk
characteristics, disease and pest susceptibilities, expression of the gene product, new enzymes, or changes to plant metabolism, weediness of the regulated article, impact on the weediness of any other plant with which it can interbreed, agricultural or cultivation practices, effects of the regulated article on nontarget organisms, indirect plant pest effects on other agricultural products, transfer of genetic information to organisms with which it cannot interbreed, and
any other information which the Administrator believes to be relevant to a determination.

Both safety of the plant and transfer of genetic material are important.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/7cfr340.6.htm

The EPA regulates any bioengineered plant that has pesticide like properties. They regulate genes/proteins, and not on the individual plant level.

So there you go. In practice, companies do test bioengineered produce more then traditionally engineered produce, but the human health is the least regulated part of the deal. I would be in favor of all new produce lines, no matter the technique in creating them, be required to have basic testing for nutrition and toxicity. The FDA rejects this, saying it is cost prohibitive.

If his expertise is "spot on" why don't yo

Uh, no.

Note to moderators: this is not interesting. It is very misinformed.

All WiFi must comply with 47CFR15.5(b).

All WiFi operates under the condition that it does not interfere with other licensed operations, and that it accepts interference from other sources without complaint to the FCC. The principle is the same world wide: If you opt out of a formal licensing scheme, you shouldn't expect support or enforcement of interference claims.

This is why radio licenses exist. The process may be arcane, expensive and even ridiculous. However, without a license, you have no legal recourse if someone interferes with your operation. I'll be the first to concede that there is much we could do to improve and speed up the licensing schemes. However, that bureaucracy is a subject for another rant. The fact that it may be done poorly does not mean that it isn't necessary.

What you're talking about is the technical amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act that was passed in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 - specifically, in Public Law Number 106-113, app. I, sec. 5005 (which can be found here, but you'll have to search for "sound recording" - it's near the bottom). Semi-contemporary coverage of this can be found here. The legal ramifications of that attempt at stealth-legislation are discussed in David Nimmer's Sound Recordings, Works for Hire, and the Termination-of-Transfers Time Bomb.

But, that scandal was fixed - in the Work Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000, Public Law Number 106-379, which can be found here.

The greater scandal is the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, Pubic Law Number 105-304, which is still codified at 17 U.S.C. ch. 13 (the law can be found here). David Nimmer has speculated in his treatise and elsewhere that the sui generis protection for boat hull designs is a trojan horse to later allow new designs to be protected by this bizarre "copyright" provision. And in fact, such protection has been considered for fashion designs.

Fact of the matter is that stealth amendments happen all the time. Copyright is not an area of that law that congress people pay much attention to.

Cryptography is classified as munitions. Trying to export the wrong stuff without a license is like trying to export a tank or a missile.

This is false. While they were considered as munitions under Clinton's Executive Order 13026 crypto was put under much weaker commercial controls. See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1996_register&docid=fr19no96-98.pdf

Do you know what their legal responsibility is? $75 million for cleanup, and $1000 per barrel in fines

Wrong. Their legal responsibility is $75 million PLUS removal costs, which is defined as

containment and removal of oil or a hazardous substance from water and shorelines or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches;

AND the limit doesn't apply if it's determined that there was gross negligence or willful misconduct (also from the linky above)

So no, BP can't just throw down $75 million worth of boom and walk away.

What I find fascinating is your animosity TOWARDS Obama and making BP out to be the hero and aggreived party. Let's be clear - BP is not the victim here. The gulf, its inhabitants, its beaches and the people who depend on all of that - they are the victims here.

TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS

                                                CHAPTER 40--OIL POLLUTION

                  SUBCHAPTER I--OIL POLLUTION LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION

Sec. 2704. Limits on liability ...
(3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total
        of all removal costs plus $75,000,000; and
                (4) for any onshore facility and a deepwater port, $350,000,000. ...
(c) Exceptions

                                        (1) Acts of responsible party

                Subsection (a) of this section does not apply if the incident
        was proximately caused by--
                        (A) gross negligence or willful misconduct of, or

[[Page 648]]

                        (B) the violation of an applicable Federal safety,
                construction, or operating regulation by,

        the responsible party, an agent or employee of the responsible
        party, or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship
        with the responsible party (except where the sole contractual
        arrangement arises in connection with carriage by a common carrier
        by rail).
OIL POLLUTION LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION

I don't think the liability cap is going to affect this incident.

What color is the sky on your planet? BP is subject to the federal Oil Pollution Act, which has an infinite limit for cleanup damages: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc33.wais&start=4683182&SIZE=13816&TYPE=TEXT What is limited by the OPA is Federal claims: The $75M is the easy money where plaintiffs don't have to prove that BP was careless or negligent in order to collect their money. The OPA DOES NOT preempt state laws, where there is no limit to what BP will have to pay. The only bar for plaintiffs in state court is that they have to prove that BP was careless or negligent.

How about "Don't ask, don't tell"? Something he could end with an executive order?

If Obama ended "Don't ask don't tell", then gays would be outright banned from the military. "No homosexuals in the military" is US law, and only an act of congress can change it.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is basically an executive order issued by Clinton that orders commanders not to go out of their way to determine the sexual orientation of the people serving under them. However, if the fact that a service man/woman is gay comes to the attention of a commander, they still have to enforce the law.

The only unilateral power Obama has is to rescind Clinton's order, which would free up the various services to craft their own enforcement policies of 10 USC 654, which could include active investigations and purges.

From TFA: "DePetrillo used open-source PBX software to spoof the outgoing caller ID..."

Last week Congress passed the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2010 which will make it illegal "to cause any caller ID service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller ID information, with the intent to defraud or deceive."

Once that's signed into law they will be on very thin ice arguing that they did not intend to defraud or deceive when they spoof their caller ID to obtain information that they normally would not be able to access.

Microsoft has a monopoly, Apple doesn't; that's the difference, and it's a difference that matters.

As several posters have pointed out, under US law it does not matter if you have a monopoly or not, that is irrelevant. (Look into: Title 15 USC; Sherman Antitrust Act; Clayton Antitrust Act; Robinson-Patman Act.) The issue, "has Apple acted to unreasonably restrict trade?" Per Title 15, paragraph 1:

"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."

To fall within this section, it has been generally held that the situation needs to meet three criteria:
1) An "agreement" must exist between one or more parties.
2) The "agreement" must "unreasonably restrict" trade.
3) Interstate commerce must be effected.

The sections in quotation marks have a lot of legislative history and case law behind them.

Again read Title 15 of the USC for more information:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=15USCC1

Each licensee shall furnish the Commission with an address to be used by the Commission in serving documents or directing correspondence to that licensee.

- 47CFR1.5(a)

actually, FOUO only covers a narrow set of conditions, and are generally privacy related. Medical records, active legal proceedings, corporate trade secrets, etc., that should be excluded from FOIA disclosure. Of course, recently this has been broadened (#1 especially)

Specifically, from

United States Code, Title 5 , Section 552
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+5USC552

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an
Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national
defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified
pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices
of an agency;
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than
section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires
that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to
leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular
criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to
be withheld;
(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information
obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which
would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in
litigation with the agency;
(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure
of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy;
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement
purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law
enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected
to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a
person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C)
could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose
the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or
foreign agency or authority or any private institution which
furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a
record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority
in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting
a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information
furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques
and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions,
or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement

[[Page 29]]

investigations or prosecutions if such d

These employees had gone through a background check (NAC) when they were first hired. They have no access to classified information, nor do they have access to locations where classified projects may be developed. The requirement extends to the cafeteria workers and the groundskeepers. The plaintiffs are employees of Caltech and are not civil servants.

The investigations (and re-investigations every 5 years) would require the employees do "voluntarily" sign a waiver (http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf85.pdf) that would authorize any investigator to "obtain any information" from a long list of enumerated and "other" sources, and would authorize any custodians of such information to release it on request, "regardless of any previous agreement to the contrary".

The investigators then send questionnaires (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-21051.pdf) to neighbors, former employers, and references asking, in an open-ended manner, for any derogatory information.

After the investigators are done, a NASA official "adjudicates" the applicant based on criteria that include "carnal knowledge", "attitude", "sodomy", and, sometimes, "adultery" and "cohabitation". The criteria had been posted on a NASA website, (http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/references/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf ), now replaced with an empty page. The plaintiffs have posted a copy at (http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf , see page 65 of the pdf). In their latest court filing (http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2009/2pet/7pet/2009-0530.pet.rep.pdf) the Solicitor General denies that NASA uses this.

A lot more on this is at the plaintiff's website, http://hspd12jpl.org/.

from Newscientist: "After more than a decade of political debate, GINA bans health insurers from setting premiums or denying coverage based on the results of genetic tests, as long as customers have no pre-existing disease symptoms. It is also aimed to prevent discrimination in employment decisions."

Discrimination still could happen, but there appears to be a bit of a framework to work against it.

The BATF has a list of approved formulas which must be used to render ethanol undrinkable in order to avoid federal excise taxes. The list is available here:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/27cfr21_03.html

The denaturants used range from simply nasty-tasting, to nausea-inducing, to downright lethal.

Apparently, Uncle Sam would rather you be dead or blind than getting driunk without paying the booze taxes...

Here's a bit of follow up with more resources.

These links contain the following documents in pdf format:
High-Speed Access to the Internet over Cable, Declaratory Ruling & NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd 4798 (2002).

Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, R&O and NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd 14853 (2005)

Finally, on why your cable internet company couldn't be sued for infringement by your customers, this is due to 17 USC 512(a) (or maybe (b) also), which reads: "A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in sub- section (j), for injunctive or other equitable re- lief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider’s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections..." It goes on to provide 5 elements that have to be shown. At no point does it mention "common carriers" or anything of the like. Frankly, that section was crafted to provide ISPs safe harbor protection from "secondary liability," AKA "contributory infringement" or "vicarious infringement." It was passed as part of the DMCA. Again, it has nothing to do with common carrier status.

You can find 17 USC 512 here.

I guess SourceForge has vetted this process with its attorneys, but I must be missing something. If a project admin opens up his project's block, he's personally criminally liable should some citizen of a country on the wrong list see a controlled technology from one of SourceForge's servers. That's scary enough for US citizens residing in the US. However, SourceForge doesn't provide the admins (AFAIK) with any export control training, or even vet their citizenship; an admin in Syria, with Syrian citizenship, who did this would seem to be out of reach of the US, which would then fall back to SourceForge, since it did not control access to the technology on its servers. Unless SourceForge has now asked to see citizenship papers of each of its project admins ... ?

This problem covers all sorts of technology far beyond encryption but, just to continue the encryption example, there is a little note on p. 7 of Category 5 (Part 2: Information Security) of the Commerce Control List:

License Requirement Note: When a person performs or provides technical assistance that incorporates, or otherwise draws upon, “technology” that was either obtained in the United States or is of US-origin, then a release of the “technology” takes place. Such technical assistance, when rendered with the intent to aid in the “development” or “production” of encryption commodities or software that would be controlled for “EI” reasons under ECCN 5A002 or 5D002.a or 5D002.c, may require authorization under the EAR even if the underlying encryption algorithm to be implemented is from the public domain or is not of U.S. origin.

I guess SourceForge has vetted this process with its attorneys, but I must be missing something. If a project admin opens up his project's block, he's personally criminally liable should some citizen of a country on the wrong list see a controlled technology from one of SourceForge's servers. That's scary enough for US citizens residing in the US. However, SourceForge doesn't provide the admins (AFAIK) with any export control training, or even vet their citizenship; an admin in Syria, with Syrian citizenship, who did this would seem to be out of reach of the US, which would then fall back to SourceForge, since it did not control access to the technology on its servers. Unless SourceForge has now asked to see citizenship papers of each of its project admins ... ?

This problem covers all sorts of technology far beyond encryption but, just to continue the encryption example, there is a little note on p. 7 of Category 5 (Part 2: Information Security) of the Commerce Control List:

License Requirement Note: When a person performs or provides technical assistance that incorporates, or otherwise draws upon, “technology” that was either obtained in the United States or is of US-origin, then a release of the “technology” takes place. Such technical assistance, when rendered with the intent to aid in the “development” or “production” of encryption commodities or software that would be controlled for “EI” reasons under ECCN 5A002 or 5D002.a or 5D002.c, may require authorization under the EAR even if the underlying encryption algorithm to be implemented is from the public domain or is not of U.S. origin.

I guess SourceForge has vetted this process with its attorneys, but I must be missing something. If a project admin opens up his project's block, he's personally criminally liable should some citizen of a country on the wrong list see a controlled technology from one of SourceForge's servers. That's scary enough for US citizens residing in the US. However, SourceForge doesn't provide the admins (AFAIK) with any export control training, or even vet their citizenship; an admin in Syria, with Syrian citizenship, who did this would seem to be out of reach of the US, which would then fall back to SourceForge, since it did not control access to the technology on its servers. Unless SourceForge has now asked to see citizenship papers of each of its project admins ... ?

This problem covers all sorts of technology far beyond encryption but, just to continue the encryption example, there is a little note on p. 7 of Category 5 (Part 2: Information Security) of the Commerce Control List:

License Requirement Note: When a person performs or provides technical assistance that incorporates, or otherwise draws upon, “technology” that was either obtained in the United States or is of US-origin, then a release of the “technology” takes place. Such technical assistance, when rendered with the intent to aid in the “development” or “production” of encryption commodities or software that would be controlled for “EI” reasons under ECCN 5A002 or 5D002.a or 5D002.c, may require authorization under the EAR even if the underlying encryption algorithm to be implemented is from the public domain or is not of U.S. origin.

Or some bright spark could, I don't know, go and look up this "Special Provision A101" of which they speak?

Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble, shall I?

A101 A primary lithium battery or cell packed with or contained in equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless the equipment and the battery conform to the following provisions and the package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment:
(1) The lithium content of each cell, when fully charged, is not more than 5 grams.
(2) The aggregate lithium content of the anode of each battery, when fully charged, is not more than 25 grams.
(3) The net weight of lithium batteries does not exceed 5 kg (11 pounds).
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?YEAR=current&TITLE=49&PART=172&SECTION=102&SUBPART=&TYPE=TEXT

So, unless you've got one of those weird mutant Nintendo DSes with the REALLY big battery back, that's the end of our little panic fit, OK?

Sheesh.

The military doesn't give a rat fuck about your attitude...

I would gather that you have not been in the military. In my experience, they're confident enough of their service and their statements about it to not resort to terms like "rat fuck". As well, if they honestly do have a problem with someone, it's solved quickly and quietly so they can go back to their drinks.

Well, like the rest of your stereotyping - you're dead wrong. (Again, no surprise.) I was in the USN Submarine service from 81-91. On top of that, the area I live in is a Navy town so I count a large number of active duty, discharged, and retired military among my friends and acquaintances and the same for DoD civilians.
 

(And you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the military does hire civilians in special cases, and even assigns them to operational and deployed units.)

I didn't mention any of that in my original post, nor do I see it's relevance.

No, you didn't mention it. (But given your general ignorance, I'm not surprised.) It is relevant because you seem to be under the misapprehension that the only way for the military to obtain personnel with special skills is to induct them into uniform.
 

You are attempting to muddy the waters with irrelevant commentary to detract from the fact that you don't like me personally and are throwing irrational argument after irrational argument.

Translation: My mind is made up, don't bother me with facts.
 

And even so, you're still wrong. The military has long waived the age requirements for narrow and specialized fields where civilian experience is desirable and not available among younger people.

Citation aaaand... citation. Care to revise your statement, sir?

I'll go you one better - and cite the actual law of the land rather than some third party website.

I've still never found an explanation for what this frequency is used for in the US, if anything.

Wi-Fi Channel 14 is centered on 2484 MHz, and is 22 MHz wide, so it covers 2473-2495 MHz. Like channels 12 and 13, it's not used in the US because the US ISM band ends at 2483.5 MHz; the channels contain significant energy outside the ISM band.

In the US, 2483.5–2500 MHz is allocated to ancillary terrestrial components used in conjunction with mobile-satellite service systems (47 CFR 25.254). These are the terrestrial transmitters used to provide service to mobile low-Earth-orbit satellite service users (think satellite radio, although I don't think XM/Sirius uses this band) when the user is in a tunnel, or the satellite signal is otherwise blocked.

2450-2500 MHz is also allocated to radidetermination (i.e., direction-finding radar) on both ship and shore, with the proviso that no interference be caused to the fixed and mobile satellite stations mentioned above (47 CFR 80.375(d)). (ISM band users, however, must accept any radar interference they receive.)

Mostly correct -- except that Ross was not convicted of espionage. Plasma actuators were not "military secrets," but a controlled technology that Dr. Ross and his graduate students -- a Chinese and an Iranian national -- had already developed. Dr. Ross thought it was patently obvious that a technology co-invented by his students could not be the subject of an export control issue, especially in an academic environment, so he (stupidly, in my opinion) ignored the regulation.

My point is that those in the FOSS community who believe that FOSS principles supersede government regulation should pay attention to the story of Dr. Ross. Study the Commerce Control List carefully and you may find that there are subjects in your work that you cannot mention over drinks at the next faculty social.

The alternative is to end up like Prof. John Ross of the University of Tennessee, convicted of export control violations and sentenced to 4 years in prison -- at the age of 72.

What few in the US recognize is that the rules are even more stringent than indicated by SourceForge. To be convicted of an export violation, one needs merely to discuss a controlled technology with a foreign national on one of the lists -- which means, in addition to many other individuals, entities, and countries, any citizen of China or Iran. Sending anything overseas is unnecessary to violate the law -- merely speaking to a group containing one such person in the audience (like at a private industry consortium meeting) is all that is needed. And the list of controlled technologies is incredibly long: See the Commerce Control List, especially Category 3 - Electronics, Category 4 - Computers, Category 5 (Part 1) - Telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2) - Information Security, and Supplement No. 2 to Part 774 - General Technology and Software Notes.

The alternative is to end up like Prof. John Ross of the University of Tennessee, convicted of export control violations and sentenced to 4 years in prison -- at the age of 72.

What few in the US recognize is that the rules are even more stringent than indicated by SourceForge. To be convicted of an export violation, one needs merely to discuss a controlled technology with a foreign national on one of the lists -- which means, in addition to many other individuals, entities, and countries, any citizen of China or Iran. Sending anything overseas is unnecessary to violate the law -- merely speaking to a group containing one such person in the audience (like at a private industry consortium meeting) is all that is needed. And the list of controlled technologies is incredibly long: See the Commerce Control List, especially Category 3 - Electronics, Category 4 - Computers, Category 5 (Part 1) - Telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2) - Information Security, and Supplement No. 2 to Part 774 - General Technology and Software Notes.

The alternative is to end up like Prof. John Ross of the University of Tennessee, convicted of export control violations and sentenced to 4 years in prison -- at the age of 72.

What few in the US recognize is that the rules are even more stringent than indicated by SourceForge. To be convicted of an export violation, one needs merely to discuss a controlled technology with a foreign national on one of the lists -- which means, in addition to many other individuals, entities, and countries, any citizen of China or Iran. Sending anything overseas is unnecessary to violate the law -- merely speaking to a group containing one such person in the audience (like at a private industry consortium meeting) is all that is needed. And the list of controlled technologies is incredibly long: See the Commerce Control List, especially Category 3 - Electronics, Category 4 - Computers, Category 5 (Part 1) - Telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2) - Information Security, and Supplement No. 2 to Part 774 - General Technology and Software Notes.

The alternative is to end up like Prof. John Ross of the University of Tennessee, convicted of export control violations and sentenced to 4 years in prison -- at the age of 72.

What few in the US recognize is that the rules are even more stringent than indicated by SourceForge. To be convicted of an export violation, one needs merely to discuss a controlled technology with a foreign national on one of the lists -- which means, in addition to many other individuals, entities, and countries, any citizen of China or Iran. Sending anything overseas is unnecessary to violate the law -- merely speaking to a group containing one such person in the audience (like at a private industry consortium meeting) is all that is needed. And the list of controlled technologies is incredibly long: See the Commerce Control List, especially Category 3 - Electronics, Category 4 - Computers, Category 5 (Part 1) - Telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2) - Information Security, and Supplement No. 2 to Part 774 - General Technology and Software Notes.

The alternative is to end up like Prof. John Ross of the University of Tennessee, convicted of export control violations and sentenced to 4 years in prison -- at the age of 72.

What few in the US recognize is that the rules are even more stringent than indicated by SourceForge. To be convicted of an export violation, one needs merely to discuss a controlled technology with a foreign national on one of the lists -- which means, in addition to many other individuals, entities, and countries, any citizen of China or Iran. Sending anything overseas is unnecessary to violate the law -- merely speaking to a group containing one such person in the audience (like at a private industry consortium meeting) is all that is needed. And the list of controlled technologies is incredibly long: See the Commerce Control List, especially Category 3 - Electronics, Category 4 - Computers, Category 5 (Part 1) - Telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2) - Information Security, and Supplement No. 2 to Part 774 - General Technology and Software Notes.

The alternative is to end up like Prof. John Ross of the University of Tennessee, convicted of export control violations and sentenced to 4 years in prison -- at the age of 72.

What few in the US recognize is that the rules are even more stringent than indicated by SourceForge. To be convicted of an export violation, one needs merely to discuss a controlled technology with a foreign national on one of the lists -- which means, in addition to many other individuals, entities, and countries, any citizen of China or Iran. Sending anything overseas is unnecessary to violate the law -- merely speaking to a group containing one such person in the audience (like at a private industry consortium meeting) is all that is needed. And the list of controlled technologies is incredibly long: See the Commerce Control List, especially Category 3 - Electronics, Category 4 - Computers, Category 5 (Part 1) - Telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2) - Information Security, and Supplement No. 2 to Part 774 - General Technology and Software Notes.

I'm amazed to be arguing with you about this. It almost feels like I have crossed over into the Twilight Zone. I love our freedoms, and fear the slippery slope of bad government. That being said, there's no substance to your concern.

Weird, right?

The text of the bill is here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ187.108.pdf

Here's a sample:

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce, knowingly—
‘‘(1) accesses a protected computer without authorization,
and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial
electronic mail messages from or through such computer,
‘‘(2) uses a protected computer to relay or retransmit multiple
commercial electronic mail messages, with the intent to
deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access service,
as to the origin of such messages,
‘‘(3) materially falsifies header information in multiple
commercial electronic mail messages and intentionally initiates
the transmission of such messages,
‘‘(4) registers, using information that materially falsifies
the identity of the actual registrant, for five or more electronic
mail accounts or online user accounts or two or more domain
names, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple
commercial electronic mail messages from any combination of
such accounts or domain names, or
‘‘(5) falsely represents oneself to be the registrant or the
legitimate successor in interest to the registrant of 5 or more
Internet Protocol addresses, and intentionally initiates the
transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages
from such addresses,
or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection
(b).

Every single stanza of that refers to electronic mail. I'm not certain how this law could be used to bootstrap a general attack upon the citizens nor upon free speech. This defines limits for one narrow kind of speech, which happens all the time, with little-to-no real impact on the overall ideal.

Not if they meet the requirements of HR 727 / Public law 107-319 . See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ319.107 which says (in part):

        ``(b) For the purpose of this section, the term `low-speed electric
bicycle' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable
pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose
maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a
motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20
mph.
        ``(c) To further protect the safety of consumers who ride low-speed
electric bicycles, the Commission may promulgate new or amended
requirements applicable to such vehicles as necessary and appropriate.
        ``(d) This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with
respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law
or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements
referred to in subsection (a).''.

SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS. >

        For purposes of motor vehicle safety standards issued and enforced
pursuant to chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code,

[[Page 116 STAT. 2777]]

a low-speed electric bicycle (as defined in section 38(b) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act) shall not be considered a motor vehicle as
defined by section 30102(6) of title 49, United States Code.

Good god, that’s hard to follow. There are so many links I can’t tell which one is the main article, there are acronyms that I don’t recognise, and it’s not tied together at all. The flow of information just jumps from one thing to another with little apparent connection between them. It’s also incorrect.

Let me see if I’m understanding this, and make it easier to follow...

To power the Tools for America's Job Seekers Challenge, the US Department of Labor tapped IdeaScale, a subsidiary of Survey Analytics, which is headquartered in Seattle with satellite offices in Nasik, India and Auckland, NZ.

According to the Federal Register (PDF), an OMB (Office of Management and Budget) Emergency Review was requested to launch the “Jobs for America’s Job Seekers Challenge”, a joint initiative by the DOL, White House, and IdeaScale to help out unemployed US workers.

Now we hit the first non sequitur... how is the development and maintenance of ideascale.com related to the Jobs for America’s Job Seekers Challenge?

A Monster.com ad (cached) seeks candidates to work on the development and maintenance of ideascale.com — in India at an annual salary of Rs. 200,000 to 300,000 ($4,4000 to $6,600 US).

The connection is – apparently – that the same people developing and maintaining the IdeaScale website will presumably also be designing the platform to “allow toolmakers and developers to present their free online job tools to workforce development experts and jobseekers for discussion, rating, and voting”. That’s a bit of a stretch, but okay. (As kdawson correctly pointed out, “There’s no guarantee that Indian workers recruited by that Monster.com ad would work on US Department of Labor projects.” Wait a second... did kdawson actually get something right? At any rate that still doesn’t make up for posting this atrocity to begin with.)

Now we hit the second non sequitur... what does IdeaScale’s other contest/survey have to do with this one, other than being hosted by the same company? Does the results of a previous survey on how to “strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness” have anything to do with this contest? They have no control over the results of the project: they’re just designing the system to take submissions and allow people to vote on them...

Last May, in a similar White House-sponsored, IdeaScale-powered Open Government Brainstorm to “strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness”, legalizing marijuana was one of the highest-voted ideas.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My points were:

1. Dr. Roth was not convicted of espionage: He was convicted of export control violations. The information he had could have been given to any US citizen without any violation of US law whatsoever.

2. No evidence was presented at Dr. Roth's trial that the controlled material on his laptop was given to any Chinese national, yet he was convicted of exporting the data anyway.

3. A close examination of the CCL would reveal that the laptop of almost any engineering researcher, in any field, would contain controlled material.

I'm not stating that Dr. Roth did not violate the law -- the law, while not concise, is exact and specific, and he clearly did violate it, in multiple ways and at multiple times. Rather, my point is that "There, but for the grace of God, go you or I." As China develops, it hosts more and more of the world's largest scientific and engineering conferences, and the CCL is so long, and so poorly written, and so outdated, that it's a near-certainty that a randomly-selected US attendee at one of these conferences can also be found to have violated it. Who keeps a second laptop at hand just to take with them to those meetings in China?

And it's not just those meetings in China -- Chinese nationals visit meetings outside China, too, in vastly increasing numbers. One can violate US law by speaking at one of these conferences if (a) a national from the controlled countries list (China is the most prominent) is present, and (b) the controlled material is not presented to the "public", meaning the meeting is a private one, like an industry consortium, and is not intended for publication. Short of having a receiving line before the talk, where all meeting attendees show the speaker their passports, it's almost impossible to avoid this violation. Did you know the nationality of everyone in the room the last time you spoke at a Wi-Fi meeting?

Dr. Roth didn't disclose any "secret" information from a "black" DoD program. He discussed an export-controlled technology on the Commerce Control List with Chinese and Iranian nationals -- graduate students actually doing the research. He also had export-controlled information on a laptop he took with him on a trip to China, and was convicted of its export too, even though forensics showed the files had not been opened during the trip.

What's on your laptop? Checked it against the CCL lately?

I think most people would be surprised to see the list of technologies on the Commerce Control list, and to learn that one can be charged with an export violation merely by talking about one of them in the presence a foreign national. Actual transport of a physical good is not required -- see this comment.

What the hell does your health insurance rant have to do with the subject at hand?

The subject at hand outrages Illiberal slashdotters because the government's law enforcers find it "too easy" to get GPS-data about their suspects (the subset of suspects, who are also Sprint customers) from Sprint. The "health insurance rant" is related to that, because people with self-consistent beliefs ought to be even more outraged, by the government's attempts to learn about each citizen's (suspected of anything or not) health care, linked precisely to their financial information.

It's funny that you say "self-consistent [beliefs]" when you really mean "consistent with my beliefs".

I think there are pretty clear differences between having a database of database of medical records subject to the same HIPAA regulations we have now and a warrentless GPS tracking program. Those differences mainly being usefulness to me, accountability for abuse, and intention of use to spell it out.

I did read your link btw, and it hinges on:

HIPAA's so-called privacy law permits individuals' personal health information to be exchanged – for many broad purposes – without patients' consent (See 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subpart E – Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; section 164.502(a)(1)(ii) "Permitted uses and disclosures").

So I went to see who could look at your identifiable health information http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/45cfr164.502.htm. In short it's no one you wouldn't expect: you, registered doctors/nurses treating you, your insurance provider for billing purposes, and specific exceptions like parent/legal guardians for minors.

If you're worried about you non-identifiable information then a lot of researchers can get a hold of that data. However I'd argue that data is doing more good than harm by being released.

Its funny that this came up. I just attended mandatory export compliance training the other day.

It would make sense that the commerce dept would be the ones calling the shots on this. There are (from what i understand) two areas of export regulations ITARS and EAR.

There are three departments that manage permissions for exports:

State Department (ITARS): weapons, etc
Commerce Department (EAR) : commercial/military
Treasury Department : (forgot what they cover)
Here is a link to EAR if youre curious: http://www.gpo.gov/bis/ear/ear_data.html

Need every new technological category get its own patent rules, and how do those rules get decided?

Depends on the leaders of that category. The people with the most money will give tiny amounts of that money to the lawmakers. Then a bill is introduced and these weird rules probably get tagged onto some bill that has a much more important focus (like health care or one of the various wars we are engaged in). Since all the lawmakers received money from the the people with money, nobody objects.

Here's one of many examples in which a bill titled "Affordable Health Choices Act" gets tiny peppering of patent law attached to it like this (which is in regards to the category 'interchangeable biological products'):

... (i) a final court decision on all patents in suit in an action instituted under subsection (l)(6) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first approved interchangeable biosimilar biological product; or

(ii) the dismissal with or without prejudice of an action instituted under subsection (l)(6) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first approved interchangeable biosimilar biological product; ...

What's worse is that no voter immediately cares. Everyone cares more about things that directly affect them--like their health or their kin dying on some god forsaken soil. The immediate threat of these lobbyists is not only unseen but no one is held accountable down the line. You have to get someone not too politically savvy to be the poster child/target for this stuff if it's a whole bill you're introducing -- like Sonny Bono on copyright extension. Oh and there's another neat little thing in American politics where if you vote for that bill and then something like this gets added and you vote against the bill, your opponents label you as a "flip flopper", "waffler" or "indecisive."

Now, I paint a picture where opposition to lobbyists never arises because no one makes it a serious issue. But there are a few examples of this working positively. Example is the generic drug manufacturers do actually have some money and realize they are getting the short end of the stick so you have these lobbying wars occasionally. The really ironic thing is that name brand drugs are more expensive for the consumer. But often the consumer is on a health plan where they pay a small percentage or a copay on their drugs. If it is a copay and the consumer buys the $100/dose Calvin Klein drugs instead of the $1/dose Walmart drugs, someone (like your health care provider) is paying a lot more. Now, imagine what kind of state our health care would be in when there can't be any generic drugs for 12 years? Won't matter if you're a copay or a percentage, you'll be taking that $100/dose because it's your health and you can't exactly put a price on your health.