Slashdot Mirror

Of course the U.S. Code has revision control. The actual bills look like patches: "Title 17, U.S. Code, section 301, is amended by striking 'foo' and inserting 'bar'." Try reading the Sonny Bono Act to see exactly how the U.S. copyright term got extended.

Well, not exactly. The administration was required to get a FISA warrant, which they did not do. They could ask for the information legally, but they couldn't require it without a FISA warrant. And, the telekoms could not legally give it to them without a warrant.

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. There always have been ways to get legal wiretaps without warrants. FISA never even required a warrant for all wire taps, just certain ones. Even the 1968 wire tap laws has situations where warrants are not required. What is required in these situation are sworn statements signed by certain department heads or investigating officers claiming to have a legal right to the information being sought.

The original FISA law can be found here. (PDF warning)

On about the fourth page, under the section 102 of 50 USC 1802, you will find where the president thought the Attorney General can order wire taps without a warrant for up to one year. Current law has expanded this quite a bit.

As you can see, A warrant isn't always required.

That's the law and it was clear to the administration, the justicce department and to the telekoms, all of whom have sufficient legal advice.

Evidently not. As I just showed you, there always has been legal means to get wiretaps without warrants.

Problem is, the administration didn't feel they were required to follow the law by the simple declaration that we were at war and they said as much.

Yes, it is a problem for the administration. However, it isn't a problem for the telecoms because they were presented with the proper documentation for the wiretaps. You can tell this because the immunity law specifically require this documentation in order for the telecoms to receive any immunity. You can find the actual text of this here (pdf warning). You will find the provisions under title 8 which starts around the page 32.

This appears to me that it will weaken the existing prohibition against this practice by providing the "in writing" loophole. Calling without a real person on the other end was already illegal except in limited circumstances due to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA)

[...]
(1) Prohibitions

                It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or
        any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the
        United States--
[...]
                        (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential
                telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to
                deliver a message without the prior express consent of the
                called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency
                purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under
                paragraph (2)(B);
[...]

How much do you want to bet that consent to robo-calls will quickly be added to the boiler plate in all sorts of contracts as well as privacy policies and TOS notices.

If it doesn't show up in everybody's mail box as part of a change to their credit cards' privacy policies, that might actually surprise me.

-Mysteryvortex

I'll tell you, there is a reason why this Global Warming or Climate Change is up for debate.
Never mind the fact that polar bears DO know how too swim or that this is the coolest summer on record. Temperatures have been cooling since 1998/99.
Never mind the fact the fact that this planet and other planets have warmed and cooled throughout the centuries.
Never mind the fact that The Inconvenient Truth is actually refuted by thousands of scientists throughout the world.
Never mind that Al Gore stands to make Billions if this Cap n Trade, Climate Change Bill HR2454 passes in the Senate and gets signed into law.
Never mind that this same Bill not only tax business but tax EVERYONE, from real estate restrictions on your home, to making you pay for renovations before you can sell your home.
Never mind that all this media spin is meant too whip support for the most invasive tax bill ever brought upon all the people of this country.
Never mind that they rushed this bill in the house, and did not even read through it, but still passed it anyhow.
All I will ask of YOU is too do the research behind the science of climate change and draw your own conclusions, before you are sway by ANY mass public opinion.
And please we have already taken such a huge debt with these bailouts, again please read the HR2454 Cap n trade Climate Change Bill. This is all incremental folks. The trial of Climate change/Global Warming and this HR2454 Cap n Trade Carbon Tax Bill is all relevant. Just trying to give a heads up. Tired of the "end of the world" fear mongering.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2454pcs.txt.pdf

Not necessarily. One of the first targets in most WW3 nuclear scenarios is landline switching facilities, in order to disrupt the command, communication, and control of the opponent. Because of this, "dynamic adaptive routing" technologies, in which telecom links can be dynamically routed around failed links and/or nodes, is viewed in the US as a strategic technology the export of which is controlled -- see 5A991.c.9 in the Commerce Control List (p.8).

You work for thieving criminals. There are specific requirement for someone to be salaried exempt. [...] Also, to be salaried exempt, there cannot be any specific expectation on what hours your work. Only details on what you must get done. The moment they care what hours you work, you are hourly.

Unfortunately, they can care about hours. I can't find the real Opinion Letter online, but here's a pretty official site that calls it out (look for "1993").

This is one of the primary reasons that radio stations have to say their callsigns at required intervals, so pilots can identify the station should they have some sort of insturment failure which allows them to tune in, but not know what they are tuning into.

That's interesting. But when I was doing radio, the station ID was required once an hour, as close to the :00 as possible, usually within 2 minutes either way. With that kind of timing, I don't see how it would be much good for a pilot in distress, unless the distress conveniently started around :55 or so.

I kept getting these scam calls on my cell phone, and I complained to the FCC but get I kept getting more scam calls. The FCC should have been on the ball about this long ago as they already have strict laws against automated dialing:
"(a) No person or entity may: (1) Initiate any telephone call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party)using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice;"
"To any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call."
Title 47

When a tiny glimpse of a nipple showed up on TV they were on it instantly even though almost everyone already has one pair of nipples and seeing a third one on TV isn't going to harm anyone. Then there's shit like this where people run telemarketing scam and yank millions of dollars while the FCC just sits there with head in ass doing nothing about it. Perhaps they should change the name from Federal Communications Commission to Federal Censorship Commission because obviously they care about nothing other than preventing people from saying fuck on TV.

UPDATE: There's a letter in WWED's correspondence file that says they can't ramp up due to Title 47, Part 73.525 - Channel 6 protection.

After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.

That's because, like him, you're a nationalist xenophobe.

I mean, the argument boils down to this: America has the First Amendment, therefore we are the only entity capable of not censoring the internet via withholding access to an arbitrary (though ubiquitously popular) namespace. The insinuation is that other countries do not have the First Amendment and therefore, all of them collectively would present the possibility of such (questionably effective) censorship.

Well, how does this argument stand up against the real (though non-American and therefore unreliable) world? Let's take the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 19.

        * Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Well, that's just a UN Resolution with no binding effect, and only reflects a general sense of the body rather than something they all commit to, right? As Rabkin says, "Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition." Well, let's take the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty that 150 countries signed 30 years ago:

Article 19

      1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
      2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

But none of these statements ensuring freedom of speech compare to the sheer Holy Writ that is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here.

Because the United States has never, ever, ever, contemplated restrictions on free speech, proving just how trustworthy we are with the world's speech. Of course, Rabkin does not offer any specific examples of un-contemplatable restrictions on speech imposed by other First World nations, nor does he bother to prove the point that the U.S. has never done anything similar (because he can't).

Nor is he at all concerned with people in other countries who may also enjoy free speech, including speech that isn't legal in the United States -- the compelling need is not to ensure the freedom of the world's people, but as he makes clear: "If we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards." Aha! It's the bogeyman of "foreign standards", which all good Americans rightly fear, because they are all, by virtue of being foreign, simply inferior to our own standards (whatever they may be).

But what disgusts me most about Rabkin's screed is that someone capable of putting his name on something so baseless, undefensible, xenophobic, fear-mongering, and full of straw-man arguments, was accepted to a doctoral program, and printed in a major magazine. Of course, it's The Standard, what did I expect? Not well-thought out global technology pieces, that's for sure.

and as a booster package to this statement i give you
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=64&SECTION=1200&TYPE=TEXT

which is a direct link to the Government Printing Office DB for
" TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

                CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CONTINUED)

PART 64_MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS--
Table of Contents

    Subpart L_Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, and
                                                    Facsimile Advertising

Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions."

or as its friends like to call it 47CFR64.1200

what they should do is make the end business responsible for these calls (profit from these clowns get buried in elephant [redacted].

It's unlicensed mainly because agencies and corporations didn't express any interest in it until fairly recently. They were more than happy to buy bands in more reliable parts of the spectrum.

That's simply not true. Do you even know what ISM stands for?

Saying that the ISM band is unlicensed because there is no commercial interest in it is like saying that they don't build condos on artillery ranges because there is no developer willing to buy the property.

From CFR Title 47 Part 18:

The rules in this part, in accordance with the applicable treaties and agreements to which the United States is a party, are promulgated pursuant to section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, vesting the Federal Communications Commission with authority to regulate industrial, scientific, and medical equipment (ISM) that emits electromagnetic energy on frequencies within the radio frequency spectrum in order to prevent harmful interference to authorized radio
communication services. This part sets forth the conditions under which the equipment in question may be operated.

... nice rant against the FCC though, very believable until you actually do the research. You say that "the FCC has always bent over backwards" to sell spectrum, do you realize that the first spectrum auction was in 1994? Prior to that, the licensing model was much different.

But is it the lawmakers' job to ensure that if for some reason a layperson wants to buy The Law they can easily understand it? People dedicate their lives to the study and practice of law; do you think a legal career could compress into an afternoon reading on the beach if our laws were just simpler? These are complex issues that are handled by complex laws, and being less specific in the laws only makes the issue cloudier.

"(c) No person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation,
as defined in paragraph (f)(12) of this section, to:
        (1) Any residential telephone subscriber before the hour of 8 a.m.
or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location), or
"

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=64&SECTION=1200&TYPE=TEXT
chapter and verse for you (assuming a US location) or as formally titled

        TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CONTINUED)

PART 64_MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS-- Subpart L_Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, and Facsimile Advertising Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.

A few words on building a proper file room... never put it in the basement or other low area where water would naturally accumulate.

The Boston Public Library learned this one the hard way.

The "gaming of the system" may actually be by the lawmaker.

In reading the legislation that was proposed by Texas Representative Joe Barton, I believe you have it right. Section 1534 of HR 6 amended the Internal Revenue Code to allow for a 50 cent per gallon tax credit on alternative fuels but amazingly also added a paragraph that states in very clear terms that a taxpayer who uses an alternative fuel but does not take a tax credit will be paid 50 cents per gallon by the Secretary.

Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 65, Subchapter B, Section 6427, Subsection e, paragraph 2

(2) Alternative fuel
If any person sells or uses an alternative fuel (as defined in section 6426 (d)(2)) for a purpose described in section 6426 (d)(1) in such person's trade or business, the Secretary shall pay (without interest) to such person an amount equal to the alternative fuel credit with respect to such fuel.

Since a tax credit had already been amended this paragraph was added intentionally to pay out tax dollars in place of providing a tax credit. This is not an incompetent mistake of a dumb government representative.

Everything you said is true, but you forgot to mention that disseminating classified information is a felony and far more likely to land you in Leavenworth than unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material :)

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+17USC107

Done, that's all you need.
Also, look up SLAPP and Anti-Slapp suit laws in your state. The above part of the US (C) code and SLAPP laws in CA are why my gripe site is still up.
-nB

I tried to quote the relevant code, but the lameness filter doesent like legal text.

This was already predicted when Biden wrote the following. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_hearings&docid=f:78178.pdf And it is only going to get worse... I really don't understand why the American pirate party supported Obama while i got this link from the international pirate party's mailinglist ages ago. Maybe some /. people can educate them ?

That's right - stay the heck out of the Amateur radio bands! We've got specially-resonant pitchforks ready, just in case. 8-) The 433 MHz ISM band is supposedly available in region 2 only, which does not include the US. Also, it's not listed in CFR Title 47, Part 18.

There's an exception for Part 15 devices to use 433-434 MHz, but that's for shipping container ID devices only.

That's right - stay the heck out of the Amateur radio bands! We've got specially-resonant pitchforks ready, just in case. 8-) The 433 MHz ISM band is supposedly available in region 2 only, which does not include the US. Also, it's not listed in CFR Title 47, Part 18.

There's an exception for Part 15 devices to use 433-434 MHz, but that's for shipping container ID devices only.

...nobody is stopping private industry from competing.

Look here. Bet you'll find something.

Your sources are diverse and correct! Everyone knows Open standards for medical documents is a one way road to Socialism. Just ask anyone on slashdot what open standards does to a buisiness! It's evil, don't touch it! You don't have to read deep into Torvaldis' Das Penguinal to see that communism follows.

Sarcasm isn't really a rebuttal. But then you knew that, right?

You could try reading Betsy McCaughey's op-ed about the piece, or better yet, go read the actual bill in question yourself. And note that that web site is GPO (Government Printing Office), not GOP - I'm sure some dyslexic will misread it and accuse me of being a shill for the Republicans.

Point of fact: nowhere in the bill is an "open" standard for medical records referenced or called for.

Point of fact: In this bill, the government is appointing itself as the entity to ensure that everybody (yes, everybody - there don't appear to be any provisions for people who wish to opt out) has electronic medical records by 2014. The government has also tasked this bureaucracy with developing infrastructure to facilitate the exchange of those medical records.

When any agency (government or private) nominates itself as the caretaker of extensive private information about you, it's wise to have privacy concerns. I don't mean tin-foil hat conspiracy theories, I mean, there should be full & accurate disclosure as to what privacy controls are in place, so that the public can understand & offer feedback on the proposal.

The GP's last 2 sentences are actually spot-on. An economic stimulus bill is NOT the place for a tacked-on afterthought which creates a sweeping change to the country's medical landscape. There are legitimate privacy questions & concerns in the creation of electronic medical records, and to just stuff them into this bill stifles open & constructive debate on exactly what safeguards should be put in place.

Slashdot readers fumed over the PATRIOT act's potential for violating their privacy; this provision could have equally far-reaching impact on your private, personal medical records. So bottom line, I'm asking you to answer this one question:

WHY is the fact that the government wants to take full or partial control of your medical records NOT a cause for concern for you?

Please answer in a complete sentence that doesn't begin with either of these two phrases:
1) "Because President Obama says..."
2) "Well it's not like it's President Bush..."

The original bill didn't require analog stations to stay on until June either.

(if the link breaks, try this PDF link)

See Sec. 4, paragraph (a) which states in part: "Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal (and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital television service) prior to the date established by law under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,.."

(typical government wordiness)

What it means is that before this bill was introduced, stations could sign off their analogs before Feb. 17th upon giving 30 days notice to the FCC and the viewers. Should the bill pass into law, paragraph (a) ensures they can still sign off before June 12th, again provided they give 30 days notice.

Several hundred stations have already given such notice. Including most of the major-network affiliates in Nashville, New Orleans, and Wichita among other cities.

The proposed new bill (PDF version) contains the same paragraph.

Is there a list of stations that have given their switch notice?

The original bill didn't require analog stations to stay on until June either.

(if the link breaks, try this PDF link)

See Sec. 4, paragraph (a) which states in part: "Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal (and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital television service) prior to the date established by law under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,.."

(typical government wordiness)

What it means is that before this bill was introduced, stations could sign off their analogs before Feb. 17th upon giving 30 days notice to the FCC and the viewers. Should the bill pass into law, paragraph (a) ensures they can still sign off before June 12th, again provided they give 30 days notice.

Several hundred stations have already given such notice. Including most of the major-network affiliates in Nashville, New Orleans, and Wichita among other cities.

The proposed new bill (PDF version) contains the same paragraph.

Is there a list of stations that have given their switch notice?

The original bill didn't require analog stations to stay on until June either.

(if the link breaks, try this PDF link)

See Sec. 4, paragraph (a) which states in part: "Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal (and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital television service) prior to the date established by law under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,.."

(typical government wordiness)

What it means is that before this bill was introduced, stations could sign off their analogs before Feb. 17th upon giving 30 days notice to the FCC and the viewers. Should the bill pass into law, paragraph (a) ensures they can still sign off before June 12th, again provided they give 30 days notice.

Several hundred stations have already given such notice. Including most of the major-network affiliates in Nashville, New Orleans, and Wichita among other cities.

The proposed new bill (PDF version) contains the same paragraph.

The original bill didn't require analog stations to stay on until June either.

(if the link breaks, try this PDF link)

See Sec. 4, paragraph (a) which states in part: "Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal (and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital television service) prior to the date established by law under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,.."

(typical government wordiness)

What it means is that before this bill was introduced, stations could sign off their analogs before Feb. 17th upon giving 30 days notice to the FCC and the viewers. Should the bill pass into law, paragraph (a) ensures they can still sign off before June 12th, again provided they give 30 days notice.

Several hundred stations have already given such notice. Including most of the major-network affiliates in Nashville, New Orleans, and Wichita among other cities.

The proposed new bill (PDF version) contains the same paragraph.

How does congress manage documents now? Are they just emailing word documents around as attachments, or is there a modern-ish document management system in place? Is it homebrew, or commercial?

A quick search turned up that "they" might already be working on a solution to your problems.

GPO's Federal Digital System (FDsys) is an advanced digital system that will enable GPO to manage Government information in a digital form. FDsys will enable GPO to manage information from all three branches of the U.S. Government...

...[Some of the main functions of the system include] Version control -- Multiple versions of published information are common; FDsys will provide version control for government information.

FDsys

CHAPTER 141--COMMERCIAL SPACE OPPORTUNITIES AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

SUBCHAPTER II--FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

Sec. 14731. Requirement to procure commercial space transportation services

(a) In general

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Federal Government shall acquire space transportation services from United States commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities. To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ303.105.pdf

How can someone like Palin possibly think she is capable of running the country?

Oh... maybe it's because she is successfully governing the state of Alaska, which involves more than just attending Illinois Senate sessions and voting "present" 130 timess or, as a US Senator, missing 314 of 1299 roll call votes (24%) since Jan 6, 2005. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629&tab=votes

Or, because she has experience as a command and chief of a National Guard unit.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=2483
In the event of an attack, members of the Alaska Army National Guard's 49th Missile Defense Battalion based here would use sophisticated surveillance and radar systems to track the missile through its initial boost phase, explained Maj. Joe Miley, the unit's operations officer. If the missile reached the midcourse phase, the Alaska Guardsmen would await the order to engage it.

She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counter terrorism plans.

While state governors generally do not need security clearances, as head of the Alaska ANG's 49th MDB, a permanent unit in a constant state of readiness, and the ASDF, part of Homeland Security, she probably has MORE security clearances than most other governors and state legislators or many US Senators.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/julqtr/32cfr154.16.htm
(4) State governors do not require personnel security clearances.
They may be granted access to specifically designated classified information, on a ``need-to-know'' basis, based upon affirmation by the Secretary of Defense or the head of a DoD Component or single designee, that access, under the circumstances, serves the national interest.
Staff personnel of a governor's office requiring access to classified information shall be investigated and cleared in accordance with the prescribed procedures of this part when the head of a DoD Component, or single designee, affirms that such clearance serves the national interest. Access shall also be limited to specifically designated classified information on a ``need-to-know'' basis.

Amazingly, while many were quick to denigrate Palin over perceived slights or shortcomings, EVEN to the point of suggesting that because she was a WOMAN and a mother she "wasn't qualified" or shouldn't run for VP (with nary an outcry from extreme "feminists"), they continued on, insisting that two years a governor of a state ranked 47 in population wasn't enough experience to be a VP nominee. Yet, they see no problem with Obama running for President. Palin was a full time governor for 21 UNINTERRUPTED months before accepting the nomination. Obama was sworn in as a US Senator 48 months ago, but 23 months ago he began running for President, and missed nearly 90% of the Senate sessions during some quarters. So, he's had only 25 months experience as a Senator but is more qualified to run for President than Palin was to run for VP?

Nice double standard there, and sexist too.

BTW, Your denigration of Police officers may speak more to your personal experience with them than to their collective character. It suggests that they have arrested you more than once for something... drugs, wife beating, child abuse, peddling, theft, burglary? Which is it?

In small towns and villages, officers are usually respected members of the community, and chosen for that reason. In larger metropolitan areas (except L.A, Chicago, and other areas of high political corruption) putative officers are culled with a variety of physical, mental and emotional examinations, or failure to meet training standards. Those that meet the tests put their lives on the line to protect you

Well, you've just failed your mandatory security refresher. This is NOT true for restricted technology. We can't share restricted data or tech. with foreign nationals (even one granted permanent US residence) or even US citizens employed by foreign corporations. All such persons must be identified by clearly marked badges while on our premises and be escorted at all times.

Well, no because we are talking about the context of this embargo. The restricted technology is part of the embargo and that only effect items being exported to that country. And no, even the restrictions from ITAR and proliferation only require a foreign national to obtain an export license and they can access the information and do anything unescorted. Just because a Tech is restricted, it doesn't mean that none of the countries could ever get them, it means that the usage had to be monitored so that they aren't use inappropriately. Take intel for example, it employs plenty of people from sanctioned countries who are living in the US. Some of them are treated as US persons while some have to get an export license. Some of these people have unrestricted access to tech some have to be monitored and can only work in certain areas.

HP might be restricted from doing business with Iran directly. That's an economic sanction. But if its not restricted technology (which is a very clearly identified set of products), HP has no duty to track or restrict its movement by its customers (in Dubai, for example). There's no legal difference between selling a truckload of printers to Dubai or to some guy who's going to drive them across the Canadian border (and then off to who-knows-where).

Actually, under the current law, HP has an obligation to ensure that their products aren't being re-exported to restricted countries without a proper export license.

If you look through the Don't let this happen to you flyer produced by the US Bureau of Industry and Security, you will find where someone sold Forklift parts to a company in Dubai who later sold them to elements inside Iran. A British company Proclad International Pipelines, Ltd, order nickel alloy pipes from an American company and attempted to reexport them to Iran. Supermicro Computer Incorporated/Mohammad Mayssami attempted to ship computer main boads to Iran VIA Dubai. It says

The Penalty: In the criminal case, Supermicro was sentenced to a criminal fine of $150,000. Supermicro also agreed to pay an additional $125,400 in civil penalties. As part of the plea agreement, Supermicro implemented a new export control program. On May 21, 2007, Super Net was denied export privileges for five years. On April 28, 2008, Mohammad Mayssami was sentenced to two years' probation, a 10,000 criminal fine, and 160 hours of community service at a charity of his choosing, for his part in financing the export transactions.

It seems that people exporting things have more of an obligation then seeing it on a truck bound for Canada.

Exports from US companies are controlled by the Bureau of Industry and Security, part of the Department of Commerce.

In addition to the list of controls for each country, most people are really, really surprised to read the list of controlled items -- the Commerce Control List. The list itself is Part 774, Catetegories 0 through 9, plus Supplements 2 and 3, linked at the bottom of the page.

One concept not well-known is that merely discussing a controlled technology in the presence of a foreign national from the "wrong" country (think China and Iran, among others) is considered an "export" of technology, and has federal penalties (fines and prison time) just as severe as the actual physical transfer of an object. This tripped up J. Reese Roth, a retired professor now facing a maximum of 150 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for 7 January 2009.

Exports from US companies are controlled by the Bureau of Industry and Security, part of the Department of Commerce.

In addition to the list of controls for each country, most people are really, really surprised to read the list of controlled items -- the Commerce Control List. The list itself is Part 774, Catetegories 0 through 9, plus Supplements 2 and 3, linked at the bottom of the page.

One concept not well-known is that merely discussing a controlled technology in the presence of a foreign national from the "wrong" country (think China and Iran, among others) is considered an "export" of technology, and has federal penalties (fines and prison time) just as severe as the actual physical transfer of an object. This tripped up J. Reese Roth, a retired professor now facing a maximum of 150 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for 7 January 2009.

The CAN-SPAM law's purpose is to make it LEGAL to spam people. Which means that if you want to get rid of spam, the CAN-SPAM law is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed. Just read the CAN-SPAM law itself. CAN-SPAM says you can legally spam, as long as you follow some rules such as putting your "correct" header information on and including an opt-out clause message.

The primary failing with CAN-SPAM is an "opt-out" system, that is, it pretends that spam is okay as long as the sender includes an "opt out" address. That's fundamentally wrong; that means that senders can constantly create new shell organizations that send "one-time" messages every time they send something. If you're stupid enough to "opt out", you're immediately added to the "valid email" lists (aka a "sucker list"). Reputable articles about spam will SPECIFICALLY tell you to NEVER reply to a spam message, so the legislation requires law-abiding victims to do what they should absolutely NEVER do.

Legislation doesn't solve all problems; murder still happens, even though it's against the law. But the anti-fax-spam law, which is very similar, has been a resounding success. The difference is that the anti-fax-spam law made spam illegal, and required existing commercial ties or an opt-in into a list. Most companies still have and use fax machines, but spam is simply a non-problem for them.... in part because the legislation got this one right. So if you sent commercial spam by fax, then you ALREADY broke the law. Versus "CAN-SPAM", which is opt-out (not opt-in).

We need a law that makes spam ILLEGAL, not LEGAL. If you didn't EXPLICITLY opt into a list, and the message is sent to lots of people, then it needs to be illegal. I would love to see that happen, and with some teeth; spam is making email systems really painful to use. Then the U.S. can stop being one of the spam havens of the world, its current shameful position.

then why is there a law the prohibiting Fedex/UPS from charging below a certain amount?)

Oh come on! When you make such an outrageous claim like this, back it up with a reference please.

Here you go. From HR 6407 - Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, section 503 "PRIVATE CARRIAGE OF LETTERS" :

''(b) A letter may also be carried out of the mails when--
''(1) the amount paid for the private carriage of the letter
is at least the amount equal to 6 times the rate then currently
charged for the 1st ounce of a single-piece first class letter;

You can google for "USPS monopoly privilege" and "USPS monopoly law" and get quite a screenful on the subject.

Have they asserted that they were served with court orders? The way I heard it explained was, roughly, "getting court orders will be too difficult, just do it and we'll make sure you don't have any trouble." I guess I don't know what they've cited and what's been sealed as State secrets. And if something is sealed as a State secret, is there any way to tell it's actually a court order, rather than a ham salad recipe?

Not court orders, statutory orders. This is probably the biggest misconception surrounding the FISA and the TSP. FISA laws at the time allowed the administration to perform wiretaps without a court order up to a year if they made sure no US Person which was just about anyone under US jurisdiction who wasn't specifically excluded by the definition of a foreign agent and something else foreign (I forget the name and it's a pain looking through the images of the old laws) was likely to be party to the call or trace. Now, if they were, they had like three days to delete the information pertaining to them and wasn't allowed to use it ever unless they went to a court after the interception and got a warrant. This is what is called statutory authorization which is important because as far as the law is concerned, it carries just as much weight as the court warrant. A statutory authorization is where a law gives someone the ability to do something. In this case, it was to order wire taps without a warrant under certain conditions. It isn't the telecom's duty to ensure those conditions are/were met. The act of making the authorization certified that it was so if it wasn't met, it would be the government not the telecom.

Ok, so they don't need court orders to get he immunity. The law I listed, even though it is long and repeats itself says ****No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter. I marked the relevant part with the **** on the previous page. A statutory authorization is where a law authorizes something. The laws, then and now, provide for the AG, the President, and so on to present authorization papers instead of court orders. If the telecoms got one, then they can't be sued.

NOw, your right in that if it is a sealed state secret, how does anyone know. Certainly the Telecoms can't present them because they would be violating another law which carried jail time. This is what the so called immunity bill did. If the Telecoms gets sued over the tap and says, we can't present the authorization, they make a statement to the Attorney Generals office.
He looks through his records to se if they presented the telecoms with a warrant of a statutory authorization. If they did, it gets passed on to a secret court that reviews it for legitimacy. If it is, the case is dropped per the law as stated before the immunity bill. If it wasn't legit, the case goes on as usual. If no tap was requested or acknowledged by the government, a statement to that effect is made and that's it.

There are a few things to remember here. The immunity isn't a blanket immunity. There actually has to be a legislative authority or court order presented to them in order to get it. The court hearing the case doesn't get access to the records but the secret court of review does. It is actually comprised of 3 judges empaneled ny the chief justice of the Supreme court. Their honesty in the matter is at the same levels as any other judges.

Now the secrete court of review has to check that along with a couple of other things.

(b) Judicial Review-

`(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the cou

One possible legal risk in performing this vague takedown is that it would establish a precedent specific to this website that the site operator makes a judgment about content of each user submission. This could have the effect of nullifying the protections of the DMCA for the website (a provider with respect to user submissions) with regard to future postings under the expectation that the website operator is making decisions of what is, or is not, posted. Normally, the DMCA protects internet providers (such as a user provided content website) from liability by providing them with a safe harbor in the form of the takedown process. If a copyright owner identifies content that infringes on his rights, the provider avoids liability by removing the content per the DMCA requirements.

What Toyota is effectively asking DesktopNexus to do is to give up the safe harbor and to make decisions about what is, or is not, a copyright violation. Instead, the decision of what images are actual infringements should be made by Toyota itself (or its lawyers). Then if Toyota makes the decisions incorrectly, Toyota becomes liable (with respect to the user whose posting was removed).

My guess here is that Toyota's lawyers know that many, maybe most, and perhaps all, of these images do not actually cause them any harm and are not genuine infringements. But they are taking this approach as a means to shed any liability for takedowns they know would be improper and cause them legal headaches.

As much as we hate the DMCA takedown provisions, it does serve the useful purpose of providing a safe harbor for providers like web site operators (and the more general web hosting providers). Although the procedures for takedown are rather draconian (for example, even if the user claims he has permission from the real copyright owner, which may even be himself, the takedown stays in force for at least 2 weeks), it is an essential part of providing the safe harbor. It is essential to protect this safe harbor to avoid the even more draconian situation where everything anyone puts up has to be thoroughly vetted in advance with the associated extreme costs. What is needed to fix the DMCA is to tweak the procedures (shorten the mandatory time frame and provide for some stiff penalties for inappropriate takedowns).

The DMCA does include this:

(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION.

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi) A sta

Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?

It's not particularly arrogant or unrealistic to think that the US has developed a particular technology and that many other countries have not developed a competitive technology yet. Technological development takes time and resources. Every country, company, organization, and individual has limited time and resources. Many countries have technologies that are very old. If they can purchase more advanced products and reverse engineering them, then they can save significant research and development costs. If the U.S. can keep such products out of the hands of certain foreign nations, then those foreign nations have to go through similar research and development efforts to try to bridge the technological gap. Of course, the U.S. government and U.S. companies continue their own R&D efforts, which helps to expand the technological gap.

Many of the technologies that are under export control are really nasty technologies. Truth is, it would be best if nobody had access to them. One possible benefit of export controls is that, by limiting the potential market for subject technologies, there is less incentive for companies to develop such technologies.

Of course, what the government considers potentially nasty sometimes conflicts with the needs of the public (e.g., strong cryptography). Care should be taken to address such conflicts, but they don't negate the potential value of export control to strengthening national security.

Really?! Because I thought here in the UK, one of the main stated reasons they started introducing RFID passports was to facilitate entry to the United States!

Can you find a link to some reference for that and get back to me? I'll do likewise.

This announces the bloody thing, but isn't complete: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-21284.htm

Most active cell phones won't cause problems. Hell, I've accidentally left my cell phone on while flying IFR and I didn't notice a thing. The track on flightaware didn't show any problems either.

The problem is that we don't know for certain that the cell phone is working properly. This is why we have regulations such as 14CFR91.21 and policies that below 10,000 AGL, you may not operate any instruments.

A quick look at NASA's ASRS database shows 9 entries concerning potential interference from portable electronic devices. So this isn't just an academic concern. Several of these entries indicated that the reporters had seen these sorts of issues before, but that it hadn't been reported.

When the flight crew tells you to shut off your toys before landing, gentlemen (and ladies, if there are any here) SHUT IT OFF! The risk of a screw-up is not yours to take. You can scream and holler at the flight crew about the injustice of denying you ten more minutes on your crack-berry once you're safely in the terminal building. Until then, their word has the full force of Admiralty Law. Shut it off or they'll do it for you.

It's not true to say that Frank waited until 2007 to awaken to regulatory issues.

Frank proposed the FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 2005 which was before the housing crisis had manifested. Furthermore, the housing crisis was largely a product of subprime lending. By law, F&F were prohibited from engaging in subprime lending. F&F didn't create the problem they fell victim to. F&F were engaging in legitimate lending, but they were not setup to be resilient against a national wide decline in home values.

Whoops. I posted the wrong link. Indeed, that link does suggest appear to directly contradict my claims. I apologize. However, the fact remains that Frank did advocate increased regulation of Freddie & Fannie. Here's a bill, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 2005, that Frank wrote which clearly delineates the necessary reforms.

Ok, I am sick and tired of people saying the US attacked Iraq without provocation. I am not happy with the sum of justifications that were presented in the decision to invade Iraq, but it goes beyond hyperbole to outright falsehood to say it was without provocation, nor was it even merely predicated on the existance of WMD's. Unfortunately, we as a society have such a short memory (and were so single-minded at the time) that we forgot that.

The Iraq War Resolution, the act of Congress that gave Bush the discretionary authority to invade Iraq, cited approximately 20 factors. High among them and comprising several separate factors was not direct evidence of WMD's, but non-compliance of the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire, including access for weapons inspectors. Hussein flip-flopping on inspector access was a weekly news topic in 2002. Other forms of non-compliance included violation of the agreed-upon no-fly zones, refusal to return material stolen from Kuwait in 1990, and firing on coalition aircraft. In addition to that, there was the 1993 assassination attempt against Bush Sr, past use of chemical weapons both against the Iranians and the Kurds, Iraqi support of Hamas, the fact that Iraq was a dictatorship (remember those people cheering in the streets in 2003? They may not like us, but they hated Sadaam more), and Congress'es and Clinton's 1998 resolution that made regime change an official US policy.

That may have not been morally sufficient to justify toppling the existing government, especially in the retrospect of the sectarian storm that resulted and was even predicted by some generals, but it is most definitely some level of provocation.

Nor is the US presence a simple occupation. It has been directed all along at setting up a democratic government, which you will note, is increasingly taking over responsibility for the administration of the country. Lest you claim is merely a puppet government, they have been asserting its own interests sometimes in opposition to those of the US increasingly over the last couple of years. For those that think it was a cover for oil control, note that the democratic government has approved oil contracts with China. I see little to no evidence that Russia is actually interested in Ossetian self-determination, especially since they have claimed several times the Ossetians are Russian citizens, as opposed to independent.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be best for the US to take a non-interventionist approach to global politics, but the invasion of Iraq did not come out of the blue.

I was going to stop there, but you got me going. Russia doesn't like the fact that Georgia is independent and can make its own economic deals with the western world, such as building the oil pipeline that runs from the Caspian through Turkey and Georgia to Europe. Russia no longer completely dominates oil trade in the region, but trading through the new pipeline in Georgia is partially dependent on the involved parties being confident the pipeline is a reliable route (ie, there aren't Ossetian separatists shelling around it in violation of their cease-fire with the Georgian government).

It gets all the more interesting when you note that the new Russian president Dmitri Medvedev, hand-picked by Putin, was the chairman of Gazprom as his last job. Gazprom is the state-owned energy company that has an effective monopoly on gas and oil in Russia, and sells eastern Europe most of its supply of supply of gas and oil. Independent oil trade through Georgia directly cuts into Gazprom's business. Anybody who gets ruffled by Cheney's former role of CEO at Halliburton should be doubly interested in Medvedev's ties to Gazprom.

Russia further doesn't like former Soviet-bloc nations having close ties, even being offered membership to NATO. When there's a military larger than the Moscow police behind a former satellite, it means Russi

The problem with Mad Cow disease is that it is extremely rare. If you slaughter 35 million cows annually, and only 1 in 10,000,000 cows have the disease, then a 1% testing regime is essentially guaranteed to never find the problem. With the numbers given, the 1% testing regime has only a 3.4% chance of detecting a 1 in 10,000,000 problem. [...]

From everything I have read, there almost certainly was trace quantities of mad cow disease in the North American meat supply, and these trace quantities will be undetectable with current sampling methods.

If 1 in 10 million cows had BSE, using the above numbers the chance of detecting it in 1 year is 3.5%, in 10 years it's 30%, in 20 years it's 50%, in 40 years it's 76%. This is hardly "undetectable with current sampling methods".

And if the incident rate is so rare that it's 1 in 10 million, why are you even worried about it? Salmonella causes over 500 deaths a year in this country, yet fewer than 1 in 300 cattle and poultry carcasses are tested for it. If you're going to raise a fuss over it, apply the money and tests where it will do the most good, not where people show the most fear and hysteria.

47 CFR 1.4000

Um uh, 33% x 90% is
But as an electrical engineer I can tell you a large power plant is way more efficient than 33%, probably better than 90%

But the grid is, depending on the distance as bad as
So the total still pans out around 1/3th, about the same as a modern (non US) car.

is... is.... super??!? is.... exploding?!?!?

IAMAEE, but as someone who knows how to read, I can tell you that a power plant can only be 90% if you include cogeneration, which is fine, but doesn't describe the efficiency of producing electricity.

Yes, the overall system efficiency is about 30%, which is quite good. Plus, the power source can be anything. Which is great.

My point was that the guy I replied to claimed that transmission and distribution are a 96% LOSS. (20% efficient in transmission and 20% efficient in distribution) That is not true.

This paper from the DOE has the numbers I was looking for. It puts average generation efficiency at 33%, and transmission efficiency at 92%. That's where I get my 30% figure.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-14446-filed.pdf

It is also about calculating the efficiency of electric cars, which is muy apropos.

You would be right if the TSA *and their subcontractors* had to comply with DOD specifications.

AFAIK, the TSA is under the DHS, which has no reason to report or comply with DOD specs. This is a link to a pdf of the U.S. Gov org chart. http://bensguide.gpo.gov/files/gov_chart.pdf

Off topic:
It seems to me, instead of using the law enforcement infrastructure we have, the current administration ignored all of it, created their own "new" law enforcement and get to ignore most law enforcement precedent by claiming the DHS is "new" and has no precedence history.

Ummm... Have you read the civil asset forfeiture law?
Wikipedia entry
Title 18, Chapter 46 US Code

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_.html

I'll let you do the counting, but the majority of the felonies in the federal system are in Title 18.

Maybe if you consider all the different combinations of specifications and amounts, etc. as different offense you might get to 40,000, but otherwise, I have a feeling it's nowhere close to that.

What a relief.

I guess we're all safe, just as long as there aren't any laws or regulations that these websites might be violating. I'm sure the authors of Freenet double-check their regulatory compliance every week. After all, the index volume for the Code of Federal Regulations is only 1100 pages, and the other 50 volumes can't be too much bigger. And why even bother reading the US Code? You barely have to skim the thing to determine that there could never be anything illegal about providing assistance to third parties who want to covertly transmit large amounts of unspecified data.