Slashdot Mirror

grape jelly writes "A new website has been created by Rep. Harry A. Waxman, of California, by the name of Politics and Science that accuses the current administration of intentionally manipulating scientific data in order to further its ideology. The site was created as a result of a congressional report (pdf) request by Rep. Waxman, available on his site. A NYTimes article is also available about the report with a response from the administration."

SuperDuG writes "According to a story on PCWorld.com the Congressional subcommittee dealing with cybersecurity will be researching and legislating new cybersecurity laws. The Chair, Adam Putnam says 'We want to put something out there that makes sense, that's balanced, that accomplishes the same goals, without it being this headlong rush to prove that we're doing something for our constituents because we were asleep at the switch when there was this digital Pearl Harbor.' Perhaps it wouldn't hurt if we all took a part and Contacted Representative Putnam about how well thought out other cybersecurity laws like the DMCA have 'helped out' and were 'thought out.' At least they're actually thinking before they legislate, and it seems they're open for suggestions."

Folic_Acid writes "CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh is reporting that the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on an amendment to a bill dealing with child abduction that would make it a crime to use an innocent-sounding domain name to drive traffic to a porn website." I can't wait to see the counter-bill that would illegalize naughty, filthy names that lead only to inoccuous content.

GuyMannDude writes "[Yesterday's] Oversight Hearing on "International Copyright Piracy: Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism" featured the MPAA and Microsoft testifying that software and movie DVD counterfeiting is an acute problem, with criminal gangs operating factories in Russia, Malaysia and other countries that have weak copyright laws. They further claim that intellectual property piracy is a vehicle for financing or supporting acts of terror." There's another article about the hearing at Infoworld.

Infonaut writes "Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D - CA) introduced H.R. 1066, The Balance Act. It seeks to clarify 'that America's historic principles of fair use - protected under Section 107 of the Copyright Act - apply to analog and digital transmissions.' Apparently Lessig is on board, as are several associations and other organizations. If you like what you see, encourage your representative to support the bill."

Infonaut writes "Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D - CA) introduced H.R. 1066, The Balance Act. It seeks to clarify 'that America's historic principles of fair use - protected under Section 107 of the Copyright Act - apply to analog and digital transmissions.' Apparently Lessig is on board, as are several associations and other organizations. If you like what you see, encourage your representative to support the bill."

ewhac writes "According to the Associated Press, Intel's Digital Rights Summit was apparently quite lively, as technologists, lawyers (including Professor Lessig), and academics argued the (lack of) virtues of copy-protection and Digital Restriction Mechanisms -- how granting Hollywood's whims would further dampen the already-reeling tech industry. The only voice in support of even more onerous legislation was, perhaps unsurprisingly, Representative Howard Berman (D-Calif), who has co-crafted a proposal to let media companies interfere with Internet operations to combat unsanctioned copying. Berman dismissed the experts' claims as a "smoke screen," to cover the tech sector's true source of hardship, its own irrational exuberance. Berman represents California's 28th district, which includes the Hollywood Hills and San Fernando Valley regions of the Los Angeles metroplex."

ewhac writes "According to the Associated Press, Intel's Digital Rights Summit was apparently quite lively, as technologists, lawyers (including Professor Lessig), and academics argued the (lack of) virtues of copy-protection and Digital Restriction Mechanisms -- how granting Hollywood's whims would further dampen the already-reeling tech industry. The only voice in support of even more onerous legislation was, perhaps unsurprisingly, Representative Howard Berman (D-Calif), who has co-crafted a proposal to let media companies interfere with Internet operations to combat unsanctioned copying. Berman dismissed the experts' claims as a "smoke screen," to cover the tech sector's true source of hardship, its own irrational exuberance. Berman represents California's 28th district, which includes the Hollywood Hills and San Fernando Valley regions of the Los Angeles metroplex."

ewhac writes "According to the Associated Press, Intel's Digital Rights Summit was apparently quite lively, as technologists, lawyers (including Professor Lessig), and academics argued the (lack of) virtues of copy-protection and Digital Restriction Mechanisms -- how granting Hollywood's whims would further dampen the already-reeling tech industry. The only voice in support of even more onerous legislation was, perhaps unsurprisingly, Representative Howard Berman (D-Calif), who has co-crafted a proposal to let media companies interfere with Internet operations to combat unsanctioned copying. Berman dismissed the experts' claims as a "smoke screen," to cover the tech sector's true source of hardship, its own irrational exuberance. Berman represents California's 28th district, which includes the Hollywood Hills and San Fernando Valley regions of the Los Angeles metroplex."

akb writes "The Washington Post is reporting that Billy Tauzin (R, LA), powerful chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has told the FTC that he will block their request for funding for the national do-not-call list in order to review the plan. A spokesman said Tauzin does not oppose the creation of the do-not-call list but is concerned with giving the FTC carte-blanche and would like to clarify what the role of the FCC is in the matter. The FTC had hoped the do-not-call list would be implemented by the middle of this year, they said delay in the funding proposal would push implementation back at least 6 months."

Slashback with more on Salon's struggle to balance ads and subscriptions, online retailers versus online bargain hunters, the not-at-all-secret government proposal to obtain "Total Information Awareness" (including information about you), and more.

Circumventing the upsell, but not all of it. Responding to the recent post about cable service a la carte, alta writes "I got a response from Jane Black (who wrote the original article) and she said slashdot jumped the gun. You can not pick and choose which channel you want. You can just choose to get basic limited and premium without getting the 2 steps in between. Here's the actual piece of law:

"Buy-through of other tiers prohibited - A cable operator may not require the subscription to any tier other than the basic service tier required by paragraph (7) as a condition of access to video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis. A cable operator may not discriminate between subscribers to the basic service tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged for video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis.

Read it all here. Here's what Jane said:

'But please make sure you understand the rule (Slashdot's headline was misleading indeed.) You can't just choose which channels you want. The new rule says that you can get basic (the network and cspan etc) plus HBO/Starz/Showtime *without* having to buy the standard package as well. If you want AMC, Lifetime, whatever, you still need to buy the whole package. Make sense?'

If you still need it, you can find more about the law here. Just type 543 in the "Section" field. The citation is: Section 623(b)(8) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Found at volume 47 of the US Code Section 543(b)(8)"

The Salon dilemma. A Slashdot post last week reported that Salon was in serious financial trouble, and had dropped its premium section and instituted giant ads. Salon has now moved to over-the-counter trading. "While we valued the prestige of a NASDAQ listing, this move to the OTC market should not affect our core business," says Salon's president and CEO in the story. Update: 11/26 00:42 GMT by J : One correction: Salon has not dropped its premium section.

Dole, or Hormel? MacAndrew writes "As briefly discussed in slashdot a few weeks ago, Senator-elect Elizabeth Dole has been sued by a constituent who received eight unsolicited emails from her. He claims $100 damages including "emotional distress for having received spam from someone who should know better." Salon has now published an article focusing on the critical political versus commercial speech aspect of the case. Courts have recognized political speech as the innermost circle of free speech protection, and groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation believe spam laws that interfere with it may be not just unwise but unconstitutional."

Surely, someone's wallet will end up fat. In reaction to the recent story about provisions of the DMCA being used to prevent the posting of post-Thanksgiving sales prices from large retailers, Brian McWilliams writes "I finished up my story about FatWallet after you posted that link on Slashdot. Might help explain some stuff."

Well, we thought this here panopticon would be a nice idea ... McLuhanesque writes "DARPA has posted the architecture for their Total Information Awareness Systems , the uber-database that purports to suck in every scrap of electronic information about everyone, mix in some Human ID at a Distance technology, among other stuff, and profile ... well, just about everyone. More of their proposed fun and games are listed here." And Declan McCullagh writes: "Just posted the transcript of the Pentagon news briefing (worth a read) on Politech. Note this is on the TIA program, not 'eDNA.'

$10,000 is nothing to sneeze at. The idea of buying code into the world of Free software (aka code Ransom, as mentioned on Slashdot a few days ago) is drawing interest. waxed writes "FreePepper is an effort to collect enough money to purchase the source code for the multiplatform text editor Pepper from its author, Maarten Hekkelman, who has ceased development of it and re-release it under a BSD-style license. Donations may be made via PayPal or cheque."

Slashback with more on Salon's struggle to balance ads and subscriptions, online retailers versus online bargain hunters, the not-at-all-secret government proposal to obtain "Total Information Awareness" (including information about you), and more.

Circumventing the upsell, but not all of it. Responding to the recent post about cable service a la carte, alta writes "I got a response from Jane Black (who wrote the original article) and she said slashdot jumped the gun. You can not pick and choose which channel you want. You can just choose to get basic limited and premium without getting the 2 steps in between. Here's the actual piece of law:

"Buy-through of other tiers prohibited - A cable operator may not require the subscription to any tier other than the basic service tier required by paragraph (7) as a condition of access to video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis. A cable operator may not discriminate between subscribers to the basic service tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged for video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis.

Read it all here. Here's what Jane said:

'But please make sure you understand the rule (Slashdot's headline was misleading indeed.) You can't just choose which channels you want. The new rule says that you can get basic (the network and cspan etc) plus HBO/Starz/Showtime *without* having to buy the standard package as well. If you want AMC, Lifetime, whatever, you still need to buy the whole package. Make sense?'

If you still need it, you can find more about the law here. Just type 543 in the "Section" field. The citation is: Section 623(b)(8) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Found at volume 47 of the US Code Section 543(b)(8)"

The Salon dilemma. A Slashdot post last week reported that Salon was in serious financial trouble, and had dropped its premium section and instituted giant ads. Salon has now moved to over-the-counter trading. "While we valued the prestige of a NASDAQ listing, this move to the OTC market should not affect our core business," says Salon's president and CEO in the story. Update: 11/26 00:42 GMT by J : One correction: Salon has not dropped its premium section.

Dole, or Hormel? MacAndrew writes "As briefly discussed in slashdot a few weeks ago, Senator-elect Elizabeth Dole has been sued by a constituent who received eight unsolicited emails from her. He claims $100 damages including "emotional distress for having received spam from someone who should know better." Salon has now published an article focusing on the critical political versus commercial speech aspect of the case. Courts have recognized political speech as the innermost circle of free speech protection, and groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation believe spam laws that interfere with it may be not just unwise but unconstitutional."

Surely, someone's wallet will end up fat. In reaction to the recent story about provisions of the DMCA being used to prevent the posting of post-Thanksgiving sales prices from large retailers, Brian McWilliams writes "I finished up my story about FatWallet after you posted that link on Slashdot. Might help explain some stuff."

Well, we thought this here panopticon would be a nice idea ... McLuhanesque writes "DARPA has posted the architecture for their Total Information Awareness Systems , the uber-database that purports to suck in every scrap of electronic information about everyone, mix in some Human ID at a Distance technology, among other stuff, and profile ... well, just about everyone. More of their proposed fun and games are listed here." And Declan McCullagh writes: "Just posted the transcript of the Pentagon news briefing (worth a read) on Politech. Note this is on the TIA program, not 'eDNA.'

$10,000 is nothing to sneeze at. The idea of buying code into the world of Free software (aka code Ransom, as mentioned on Slashdot a few days ago) is drawing interest. waxed writes "FreePepper is an effort to collect enough money to purchase the source code for the multiplatform text editor Pepper from its author, Maarten Hekkelman, who has ceased development of it and re-release it under a BSD-style license. Donations may be made via PayPal or cheque."

DarkSparks writes "The EFF is urging everyone to contact their Representatives and ask them to co-sponsor Representative Rick Boucher and John Doolittle's recently introduced Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA, H.R. 5544), which would introduce labelling requirements for usage-impaired "copy-protected" compact discs, as well as make several key amendments to the DMCA, including affirming the right of scientific research into technology protection measures and affirming the right of citizens to circumvent technology measures to gain access to copyrighted works they've purchased."

inonit writes "Well, geez -- after all this US election talk, I got inspired to write my congresswoman. But as a good Slashdotter, imagine my irritation when I found the following note in the "Contact" section: 'In order to send an e-mail to Congresswoman Tubbs-Jones, please complete this form using the Internet Explorer browser. If the Internet Explorer browser is not available, please mail your correspondence to the listed postal mailing address above.' I don't really have the time to check all 435 Congressional sites to see if this is widespread, but it gives me some insight into why all those <sarcasm>foreigners</sarcasm> are complaining about having their governments be beholden to U.S. technology companies. Can someone running IE write my congressperson and ask her to let me write her? Does she only accept phone calls from AT&T customers?" I just tried filling out the form with Mozilla, and ended up at a page notifying me of a search error. (Huh?)

inonit writes "Well, geez -- after all this US election talk, I got inspired to write my congresswoman. But as a good Slashdotter, imagine my irritation when I found the following note in the "Contact" section: 'In order to send an e-mail to Congresswoman Tubbs-Jones, please complete this form using the Internet Explorer browser. If the Internet Explorer browser is not available, please mail your correspondence to the listed postal mailing address above.' I don't really have the time to check all 435 Congressional sites to see if this is widespread, but it gives me some insight into why all those <sarcasm>foreigners</sarcasm> are complaining about having their governments be beholden to U.S. technology companies. Can someone running IE write my congressperson and ask her to let me write her? Does she only accept phone calls from AT&T customers?" I just tried filling out the form with Mozilla, and ended up at a page notifying me of a search error. (Huh?)

Gary Chapman at the University of Texas writes "Congressman Lamar Smith of the 21st Congressional District in Texas, which takes in San Antonio and part of Austin, has assembled a remarkable panel of influential speakers to address the issue of file-sharing on college and university campuses. The event will be Friday, October 11, from 9 a.m until 10:30 at the Bass Lecture Hall in the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin." Read on below for more details, especially if you're one of the thousands of UT students in the dorms.

"The panelists will be:

• Steve Griffin, Chairman and CEO of StreamCast Networks
  
• Robert Holleyman, President and CEO of the Business Software Alliance
  
• Douglas Lowenstein, President of the Interactive Digital Software Association
  
• Michael Merhej, President of Audiogalaxy.com
  
• Cary Sherman, President of the Recording Industry Association of America
  
• Gigi Sohn, President of Public Knowledge
  
• Daniel A. Updergrove, Vice President for Information Technology, University of Texas
  
• Jonathan Zuck, President of the Association for Competitive Technology

I will be the moderator for this event. For more information or to RSVP, send mail to jessica.marfurt@mail.house.gov.

Here is a map to the LBJ School at the University of Texas in Austin. The Bass Lecture Hall is in the basement of the building."

brandido writes "The Register is reporting that Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled his attempt at returning some rights to consumers. According to the Register: "As we reported yesterday, some of the biggest names in IT names were on hand to support a legislation from Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled this morning. Boucher vowed to strike out the repressive portions of the DMCA, and 'directs the Federal Trade Commission to undertake a rulemaking to assure adequate notice to the public of any lack of functionality which may attend the purchase of copy protected CDs.'" Details of the bill can be found in PDF format , as can a summary and Boucher's Statement (taken from The Reg story)." Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself. Neither of these is worth paying much attention to: Congress is about to wrap up and go home for the year, and will start afresh in January with a clean slate. Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.

brandido writes "The Register is reporting that Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled his attempt at returning some rights to consumers. According to the Register: "As we reported yesterday, some of the biggest names in IT names were on hand to support a legislation from Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled this morning. Boucher vowed to strike out the repressive portions of the DMCA, and 'directs the Federal Trade Commission to undertake a rulemaking to assure adequate notice to the public of any lack of functionality which may attend the purchase of copy protected CDs.'" Details of the bill can be found in PDF format , as can a summary and Boucher's Statement (taken from The Reg story)." Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself. Neither of these is worth paying much attention to: Congress is about to wrap up and go home for the year, and will start afresh in January with a clean slate. Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.

brandido writes "The Register is reporting that Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled his attempt at returning some rights to consumers. According to the Register: "As we reported yesterday, some of the biggest names in IT names were on hand to support a legislation from Rep. Rick Boucher unveiled this morning. Boucher vowed to strike out the repressive portions of the DMCA, and 'directs the Federal Trade Commission to undertake a rulemaking to assure adequate notice to the public of any lack of functionality which may attend the purchase of copy protected CDs.'" Details of the bill can be found in PDF format , as can a summary and Boucher's Statement (taken from The Reg story)." Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself. Neither of these is worth paying much attention to: Congress is about to wrap up and go home for the year, and will start afresh in January with a clean slate. Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.

blastedtokyo writes "House representative Zoe Lofgren introduced the Digital Choice and Freedom Act. Perhaps the most interesting section is the part that invalidates 'non-negotiable shrink wrap licenses' (EULAs) that limit rights. On top of this, it states that both digital and analog media need to be subject to fair use rules for backing up. The full text of the bill is also available." News.com.com.com.com and Infoworld have stories as well, which both note that there is no chance of these bills being passed this year.

blastedtokyo writes "House representative Zoe Lofgren introduced the Digital Choice and Freedom Act. Perhaps the most interesting section is the part that invalidates 'non-negotiable shrink wrap licenses' (EULAs) that limit rights. On top of this, it states that both digital and analog media need to be subject to fair use rules for backing up. The full text of the bill is also available." News.com.com.com.com and Infoworld have stories as well, which both note that there is no chance of these bills being passed this year.

blastedtokyo writes "House representative Zoe Lofgren introduced the Digital Choice and Freedom Act. Perhaps the most interesting section is the part that invalidates 'non-negotiable shrink wrap licenses' (EULAs) that limit rights. On top of this, it states that both digital and analog media need to be subject to fair use rules for backing up. The full text of the bill is also available." News.com.com.com.com and Infoworld have stories as well, which both note that there is no chance of these bills being passed this year.

dstone writes "Craig Venter, Time Magazine's Person of the Year in 2000 has a new hobby: collecting rich people's DNA. Millionaires are lining up to buy their personal gene maps for the cool price of USD$621,500. The process takes a week and you get some insight into your genetic mutations that may correlate with illnesses, cancers, Alzeimer's, etc. Venter is a high profile character in the genetic sequencing scene and the Human Genome Project. More info on him may be found here(1) , here(2), and here(3) . If you had the pocket change, would you give this man your business?"

jalefkowit writes "I'm a writer for the Online Community Report, and in our last issue we ran a story I wrote that might be of interest to the Slashdot readership. Slashdot has already mentioned the campaign of Tara Sue Grubb to unseat Howard Coble in North Carolina's 6th congressional district. We thought this story merited some deeper analysis, so I put together a piece entitled "Tara Sue Takes Aim" that ran in the latest issue of OCR. I'd love to hear the community's opinion of our take on the significance of her campaign."

Lunenburg writes: "The Greensboro (NC) News & Record ran a column in their Sunday paper last week entitled Coble wrong about Hollywood Hackers, in which columnist Edward Cone suggests that Coble's support of the P2P Hacking bill may just be his way of showing his support for the Copyright industry, without really supporting the methods." There's some more (including contact information) below.

"The column touches on the creation of the Hollywood vigilante mob, Coble's campaign contributions, and suggests that people across the internet, not just in Coble's 6th District, email Coble and Berman with their polite, well-reasoned opposition to the bill.

What if that trickle turned into a flood, not just from the North Carolina Piedmont but from all around the country? It would be a watershed moment in the Internet's rise as a force in American democracy. (And the Web is all that democracy has going for it just now in terms of putting the heat under Coble and Berman, who are both running unopposed by major-party candidates this year.)

There is plenty of time for action. Congress is in recess, and the bill won't be considered until September. Meanwhile, Howard Coble has shown himself to be willing to listen and learn, and even to revise his opinion in public. The corporate hacking bill needs to be changed, and you have the power to help change it.

Here's a chance to see if email activism really works!"

Lunenburg writes: "The Greensboro (NC) News & Record ran a column in their Sunday paper last week entitled Coble wrong about Hollywood Hackers, in which columnist Edward Cone suggests that Coble's support of the P2P Hacking bill may just be his way of showing his support for the Copyright industry, without really supporting the methods." There's some more (including contact information) below.

"The column touches on the creation of the Hollywood vigilante mob, Coble's campaign contributions, and suggests that people across the internet, not just in Coble's 6th District, email Coble and Berman with their polite, well-reasoned opposition to the bill.

What if that trickle turned into a flood, not just from the North Carolina Piedmont but from all around the country? It would be a watershed moment in the Internet's rise as a force in American democracy. (And the Web is all that democracy has going for it just now in terms of putting the heat under Coble and Berman, who are both running unopposed by major-party candidates this year.)

There is plenty of time for action. Congress is in recess, and the bill won't be considered until September. Meanwhile, Howard Coble has shown himself to be willing to listen and learn, and even to revise his opinion in public. The corporate hacking bill needs to be changed, and you have the power to help change it.

Here's a chance to see if email activism really works!"

Karl writes "The RIAA announced today their intention to appeal the royalty rates for internet radio decided on by the Librarian of Congress. Today was the very last day to file for an appeal." The webcasters put out of business by the royalties include SomaFM, Monkeyradio, KPIG, and many others. At least a few Congressional representatives support revising CARP to give small webcasters a chance to survive.

RennieScum writes: "The House of Representatives is turning to technology with their test of XML for use with resolutions according to this article. It reports that the HR has made 100 DTDs and uses Microsoft Word and a special converter to do the job. Testing has begun and their goal is to start using it in January of next year. See also http://xml.house.gov/ And it looks like the DTDs will be free to use and distribute!"

uqbar writes: "The U.S. House Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual property will be holding a hearing on June 5th at 2pm. The hearing is entitled "DRM: The Consumer Benefits of Today's Digital Rights Management Solutions." It will have live audio streams and might also be on CSPAN 2 or 3. Attendees include reps from Microsoft, Adobe, Center Span and SunnComm. I just wonder who, in that bunch, is supposedly representing the consumers, not to mention independant 'content' creators like musicians and music producers."

tongue asks: "I have the opportunity tomorrow to go to a town meeting with my Congressman, Gene Taylor (D, Miss.). I'd like to be able to ask several (preferably intelligent) questions regarding issues facing the technology industry today, on bills like the DMCA, SSSCA, etc; but I'm having trouble narrowing down the field. The research I've been able to do so far indicates a fairly conservative voting record, although I haven't had much luck finding a good site that summarizes a bill-by-bill voting record along with a synopsis of the bill." We did a similar question, last month about the CBDTPA which dovetails nicely with this issue. What questions about these and other questionable electronic laws passed over the last few years, would you like tongue to ask Senator Taylor?

ScuzzMonkey asks: "I work for a small company trying to streamline some business processes in Washington State. As a part of this initiative, we're considering implementing a 'paperless' contracts system. In order for this to work out, on our end, we need a legally acceptable method of electronically signing the contract documents that we receive via fax from our sub-contractors (at this time, they will still be signing manually; this may eventually move to e-mail and digital signatures on their end as well as they become more capable of dealing with us on that level). On the face of it, this seems pretty straightforward. I set up some sort of certificate or some such for our employees responsible for signing these documents, and they simply review the TIFF attachment that comes in from the fax software and 'sign' it with their digital signature via a selected program. With the passage of the E-Sign Act (PDF) in 2000, it seems like this should be every bit as solid in court as a written signature. But while I've been able to find quite a lot of information on the web about the theoretical ramifications of this law, there's not much on practical implementations. What sort of software should I use? Do I need a third-party issued certificate? If so, do I just need one for the company, or one for each signer? What certificate authorities would you recommend? Do some certificates work with some software but not other software? What about this program from the state? Has anyone done this successfully yet? Any other stumbling blocks I should be aware of here, either legal or technological?"

Alien54 writes: "The US Congress Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property is holding a hearing today on "The Accuracy and Integrity of the WHOIS DATABASE." This is specifically on HR 4640, "To provide criminal penalties for providing false information in registering a domain name on the Internet." - - You can hear live audio of the hearing here on the weekly schedule page (NB windows media). Strangely, this had passed throught hands of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security which is involved in a number of things on interest to Slashdot readers." (Visit Thomas and type in "HR 4640" in the query box to read more on this bill.)

Alien54 writes: "The US Congress Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property is holding a hearing today on "The Accuracy and Integrity of the WHOIS DATABASE." This is specifically on HR 4640, "To provide criminal penalties for providing false information in registering a domain name on the Internet." - - You can hear live audio of the hearing here on the weekly schedule page (NB windows media). Strangely, this had passed throught hands of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security which is involved in a number of things on interest to Slashdot readers." (Visit Thomas and type in "HR 4640" in the query box to read more on this bill.)

Alien54 writes: "The US Congress Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property is holding a hearing today on "The Accuracy and Integrity of the WHOIS DATABASE." This is specifically on HR 4640, "To provide criminal penalties for providing false information in registering a domain name on the Internet." - - You can hear live audio of the hearing here on the weekly schedule page (NB windows media). Strangely, this had passed throught hands of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security which is involved in a number of things on interest to Slashdot readers." (Visit Thomas and type in "HR 4640" in the query box to read more on this bill.)

Alien54 writes: "The US Congress Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property is holding a hearing today on "The Accuracy and Integrity of the WHOIS DATABASE." This is specifically on HR 4640, "To provide criminal penalties for providing false information in registering a domain name on the Internet." - - You can hear live audio of the hearing here on the weekly schedule page (NB windows media). Strangely, this had passed throught hands of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security which is involved in a number of things on interest to Slashdot readers." (Visit Thomas and type in "HR 4640" in the query box to read more on this bill.)

jonerik writes "NBC News is reporting that today New Jersey will begin examining the possibility of placing limits on roller coaster G-forces. Pointing out that the G-forces on coasters are considerably greater than even those experienced by astronauts and race car drivers, legislators on both the state and national levels want to start reining in coaster G-forces which have been blamed for a number of injuries and deaths over the past few years. Pansies. Why do they think people ride roller coasters to begin with?"

Slashback tonight with more on deep linking, wireless access during Spider-Man, abusing terrycloth, Linux on the mainframe and more. Read on below to find the details. Update: 05/15 15:00 GMT by T : (Note the two updates below re: Towel Day, Observed.)

They're also good for drying off after bathing. Snitty writes "Douglas Adams passed away a little over a year ago now, and as tradition will soon dictate the first Thursday after May 11th every year is International Towel Day. This happens to be this Thursday, so make sure you all show up to the 12:01 am showing of Attack of the Clones with your favorite lightsaber and a towel. Always know where your towel is."

Update: 05/15 00:11 GMT by T : Hmmm -- this seems to clash with a link another reader submitted, which suggests "the last Friday of every May," which this year would be the 31st.

Update: 05/15 15:00 GMT by T : D Clyde Williamson writes: "Towel Day (since I'm the guy who started it) is on May 25th every year." So ... it's not a portable feast?

Three guesses where they each get that money from. mblase writes "CNet, among others, informed its readers that Macromedia successfully countersued Adobe for patent infringement to the tune of $4.9 million, almost double the $2.8 million Adobe recently won from Macromedia. The article notes Macromedia has another patent suit against Adobe going to court in June 2003."

Listening material when Prairie Home Companion is over. Ender, Duke_of_URL writes "The second portion of Rep. Boucher's interview is up (MP3). This has been discussed previously on Slashdot."

They're also opposed to front doors. dringess writes "Wired has yet another article about deep linking. This one has some fun lawyer rebuttals. I guess I am deep linking right now!"

I especially like this quote: "... but this would set a terrible precedent implying that links have to have a certain amount of ads."

Keeps popcorn out of your keyboard, at least. smashed writes: "After being slashdotted and geekaustin'd and touted for being the first theater with wireless access .... I went to see Spider-Man tonight at the Alamo Drafthouse North in Austin. Apparently you can't have 'electronic devices on' during the feature. I was warned if I didn't shut down my laptop I had to leave by some girl that worked for the theater. The world's first Cyber-Theater my ass. Nice try, but apparently wireless users are absolutely not welcomed there when a movie is playing. I'm very disappointed. I couldn't even have my PocketPC with wireless NIC on while the movie was on. Was I taking off down the runway on an airplane? What's the point?"

Wouldn't you like a mainframe in the closet? Writing in regards to this posting on Linux on mainframes, rudy writes: "Your reference was to the first one in the series, the second one has been up for about a week and the third, and last, one in the series will go on late this week or early next."

The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing in my home town yesterday: "Chatting On-Line: A Dangerous Proposition for Children." Six witnesses came to Kalamazoo, Michigan and described the perils of on-line chat to Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) and Rep. Charles Bass (R-New Hampshire). The most surprising and welcome news of the afternoon was that, despite the alarmist title, there was not a panicked call for additional legislation.

The hearing launched with Congressman Upton touting his internet record -- notably the .kids domain, now .kids.us. Personally, I like the idea of .kids.us, though some disagree.

The witnesses were Katie Tarbox, who in 1995, at age 13, had been inadequately briefed on the "rules of the net" and disasterously agreed to meet a child predator she'd chatted with online; two local law enforcement personnel, John Karraker and Jim Gregart; Ruben Rodriguez, the Director of the Exploited Child Unit for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; Caroline Curtin, the Director of Children's Policy for AOL; and Kathleen Tucker, the Director of Curriculum Development for I-Safe America.

Everyone was concerned about keeping children safe online. It goes without saying that this is a desirable goal, as long as it's done in accordance with the Constitution and doesn't interfere with everyone else's legal use of the internet.

The problem is a serious one. Real kids are being lured into dangerous relationships over the internet; charges were filed in one more case here in Kalamazoo County just last week.

The preferred pickup method for child molesters nowadays is the internet: chat, instant-messaging, and email. The old tricks of "would you like some candy?" and "your parents were in an accident, I'll drive you to the hospital" -- those are yesterday's news. Kids growing up now need to be aware of different dangers, ones involving formation of long-term relationships, questions about online identity, and trust.

I wasn't able to find any reliable statistics on how often children are victimized using the internet. The best numbers I found were from a phone survey of 1,501 children, ages 10 to 17, who used the internet regularly. Of them, 19% had "received an unwanted sexual solicitation" (imprecisely defined) but only 3% had been solicited with "attempts or requests for offline contact" or actual offline contact.

And precisely 0 of the 1,501 children said they had been sexually contacted or assaulted due to online solicitations. This seems significant to me, given that 21% of all children -- statistically, hundreds of the children in the phone survey -- are sexually abused (by some definition of the term) before age 18. Unfortunately, 0 is not a number that extrapolates well to estimate how many of the United States's 70 million children will be physically victimized with help from the internet. But if I understand the numbers, it seems the internet is not the most likely source of danger.

A study called JOVIS is in the works and should provide some concrete numbers. According to Mr. Rodriguez, we can expect data from it in four to five months.

In any case, the message our lawmakers heard yesterday was not that we need more laws.

All six witnesses said, using almost the same words, that there is no substitute for parental involvement. Three called for more money and training for law enforcement, to give existing laws teeth. It sounds like law enforcement, especially at the state and local level, is still coming up to speed on this issue. And Ms. Curtin, for AOL, emphasized that ISPs were already taking steps, and suggested patience to allow them to develop an industry standard.

The testimony and discussion was so removed from proposing new legislation, in fact, that Rep. Bass seemed a little bored and annoyed. He had to remind everyone twice that he and his colleague were lawmakers: "As a member of Congress, I would like to hear what recommendations you have for what we might do -- I haven't heard anything about that so far. ... If I could reiterate: we make policy. This is a very interesting problem, but precisely what suggestions would you have for us as policymakers? If you could draft the bill, what would it say?"

Proposals were hesitant. Our local prosecutor suggested mandated inclusion of a CD with every new computer sale, which would explain how to keep children safe online. I'm not sure why existing explanations (here's one) are insufficient; why not just link? And Kathleen Tucker of I-Safe suggested standardizing on "digital certificates," client-side certs issued by an authority which confirms your identity using proof ranging from photo ID up to DNA (!) -- thus allowing children to verify that screen name BritneyRulez333 does not actually belong to a 45-year-old man.

That excepted, Ms. Tucker's testimony was refreshingly sound. She squarely faced the problem of child predators, and quoted Judith Krug of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom: children "need to be taught the skills to cope in the virtual world just as they are taught skills to cope in the physical world."

Parents aren't there to watch over kids every minute. Just as they learn to cross the street without holding an adult's hand, so they need to learn how to wander the internet safely. "The value of empowering our children, through education," she concluded, "with the knowledge and critical-thinking skills that they need to be able to independently assess the every-day situations they will encounter while online cannot be overstressed... Education and empowerment are key."

In my opinion, that's exactly right.

But I wonder how effectively government will be able to help alleviate the problem. Knowledge is key, but kids are, as usual, embracing and understanding change, while bored Congressmen sit behind tables and listen to prepared speeches. Last week, I contacted three students, ages 14 to 17, and asked them about their experiences chatting online.

What they thought, and what they reported their friends thought, was pretty savvy. They understand the dangers, are well aware of the internet's advantages, and know how to stay safe. One student reported:

If kids know not to give out their personal information, and what could happen if they do, then there is really no danger. I would feel like I was missing out on a lot if I didn't have the opportunities to communicate online. It gives me a chance to stay in touch with my current friends, make new friends, meet interesting people, and find a group where I feel like I belong.

Another student reported:

I chat to other people almost every night, or whenever I get the chance to. I do not see chatting on-line as being dangerous, or otherwise harmful. Sure you always hear those stories about 12 year old girls chatting with 45 year old men, but I see online chatting as a way for people with similar interests to discuss and debate interesting topics. ...I strongly believe that if you chat online with people that you do not know personally, you should figure out what this person is really like, and if you can trust them or not.

Finally, I traded several emails with one girl who had chatted online extensively for years, and has met in person "at least 10 or so" other kids whom she first found on AOL -- including a meeting with some boys from another state.

This might seem like a recipe for disaster. But, not only was her protocol for establishing trust detailed and thorough -- paranoid even -- but she readily explained to me her reasoning for each step along the way. She's a poster child for "education and empowerment." And I doubt she's unique:

How did I know to be careful about creeps on the internet? It would be hard not to know nowadays. With an Oprah special about it practically every week, and news documentaries and polls, the facts are pretty much right out there for you. It's like taking candy from a stranger, it's common sense I guess... The types who would fall prey to an online creep would just as easily be a victim to a creep in real life... If the topic of internet chat comes up in school, teachers will almost always preach about safety and weirdos and such. So pretty much the topic of internet safety is inescapable -- it just depends on how well you listen to it.

I hope that's true for every young person.

The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing in my home town yesterday: "Chatting On-Line: A Dangerous Proposition for Children." Six witnesses came to Kalamazoo, Michigan and described the perils of on-line chat to Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) and Rep. Charles Bass (R-New Hampshire). The most surprising and welcome news of the afternoon was that, despite the alarmist title, there was not a panicked call for additional legislation.

The hearing launched with Congressman Upton touting his internet record -- notably the .kids domain, now .kids.us. Personally, I like the idea of .kids.us, though some disagree.

The witnesses were Katie Tarbox, who in 1995, at age 13, had been inadequately briefed on the "rules of the net" and disasterously agreed to meet a child predator she'd chatted with online; two local law enforcement personnel, John Karraker and Jim Gregart; Ruben Rodriguez, the Director of the Exploited Child Unit for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; Caroline Curtin, the Director of Children's Policy for AOL; and Kathleen Tucker, the Director of Curriculum Development for I-Safe America.

Everyone was concerned about keeping children safe online. It goes without saying that this is a desirable goal, as long as it's done in accordance with the Constitution and doesn't interfere with everyone else's legal use of the internet.

The problem is a serious one. Real kids are being lured into dangerous relationships over the internet; charges were filed in one more case here in Kalamazoo County just last week.

The preferred pickup method for child molesters nowadays is the internet: chat, instant-messaging, and email. The old tricks of "would you like some candy?" and "your parents were in an accident, I'll drive you to the hospital" -- those are yesterday's news. Kids growing up now need to be aware of different dangers, ones involving formation of long-term relationships, questions about online identity, and trust.

I wasn't able to find any reliable statistics on how often children are victimized using the internet. The best numbers I found were from a phone survey of 1,501 children, ages 10 to 17, who used the internet regularly. Of them, 19% had "received an unwanted sexual solicitation" (imprecisely defined) but only 3% had been solicited with "attempts or requests for offline contact" or actual offline contact.

And precisely 0 of the 1,501 children said they had been sexually contacted or assaulted due to online solicitations. This seems significant to me, given that 21% of all children -- statistically, hundreds of the children in the phone survey -- are sexually abused (by some definition of the term) before age 18. Unfortunately, 0 is not a number that extrapolates well to estimate how many of the United States's 70 million children will be physically victimized with help from the internet. But if I understand the numbers, it seems the internet is not the most likely source of danger.

A study called JOVIS is in the works and should provide some concrete numbers. According to Mr. Rodriguez, we can expect data from it in four to five months.

In any case, the message our lawmakers heard yesterday was not that we need more laws.

All six witnesses said, using almost the same words, that there is no substitute for parental involvement. Three called for more money and training for law enforcement, to give existing laws teeth. It sounds like law enforcement, especially at the state and local level, is still coming up to speed on this issue. And Ms. Curtin, for AOL, emphasized that ISPs were already taking steps, and suggested patience to allow them to develop an industry standard.

The testimony and discussion was so removed from proposing new legislation, in fact, that Rep. Bass seemed a little bored and annoyed. He had to remind everyone twice that he and his colleague were lawmakers: "As a member of Congress, I would like to hear what recommendations you have for what we might do -- I haven't heard anything about that so far. ... If I could reiterate: we make policy. This is a very interesting problem, but precisely what suggestions would you have for us as policymakers? If you could draft the bill, what would it say?"

Proposals were hesitant. Our local prosecutor suggested mandated inclusion of a CD with every new computer sale, which would explain how to keep children safe online. I'm not sure why existing explanations (here's one) are insufficient; why not just link? And Kathleen Tucker of I-Safe suggested standardizing on "digital certificates," client-side certs issued by an authority which confirms your identity using proof ranging from photo ID up to DNA (!) -- thus allowing children to verify that screen name BritneyRulez333 does not actually belong to a 45-year-old man.

That excepted, Ms. Tucker's testimony was refreshingly sound. She squarely faced the problem of child predators, and quoted Judith Krug of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom: children "need to be taught the skills to cope in the virtual world just as they are taught skills to cope in the physical world."

Parents aren't there to watch over kids every minute. Just as they learn to cross the street without holding an adult's hand, so they need to learn how to wander the internet safely. "The value of empowering our children, through education," she concluded, "with the knowledge and critical-thinking skills that they need to be able to independently assess the every-day situations they will encounter while online cannot be overstressed... Education and empowerment are key."

In my opinion, that's exactly right.

But I wonder how effectively government will be able to help alleviate the problem. Knowledge is key, but kids are, as usual, embracing and understanding change, while bored Congressmen sit behind tables and listen to prepared speeches. Last week, I contacted three students, ages 14 to 17, and asked them about their experiences chatting online.

What they thought, and what they reported their friends thought, was pretty savvy. They understand the dangers, are well aware of the internet's advantages, and know how to stay safe. One student reported:

If kids know not to give out their personal information, and what could happen if they do, then there is really no danger. I would feel like I was missing out on a lot if I didn't have the opportunities to communicate online. It gives me a chance to stay in touch with my current friends, make new friends, meet interesting people, and find a group where I feel like I belong.

Another student reported:

I chat to other people almost every night, or whenever I get the chance to. I do not see chatting on-line as being dangerous, or otherwise harmful. Sure you always hear those stories about 12 year old girls chatting with 45 year old men, but I see online chatting as a way for people with similar interests to discuss and debate interesting topics. ...I strongly believe that if you chat online with people that you do not know personally, you should figure out what this person is really like, and if you can trust them or not.

Finally, I traded several emails with one girl who had chatted online extensively for years, and has met in person "at least 10 or so" other kids whom she first found on AOL -- including a meeting with some boys from another state.

This might seem like a recipe for disaster. But, not only was her protocol for establishing trust detailed and thorough -- paranoid even -- but she readily explained to me her reasoning for each step along the way. She's a poster child for "education and empowerment." And I doubt she's unique:

How did I know to be careful about creeps on the internet? It would be hard not to know nowadays. With an Oprah special about it practically every week, and news documentaries and polls, the facts are pretty much right out there for you. It's like taking candy from a stranger, it's common sense I guess... The types who would fall prey to an online creep would just as easily be a victim to a creep in real life... If the topic of internet chat comes up in school, teachers will almost always preach about safety and weirdos and such. So pretty much the topic of internet safety is inescapable -- it just depends on how well you listen to it.

I hope that's true for every young person.

The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing in my home town yesterday: "Chatting On-Line: A Dangerous Proposition for Children." Six witnesses came to Kalamazoo, Michigan and described the perils of on-line chat to Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) and Rep. Charles Bass (R-New Hampshire). The most surprising and welcome news of the afternoon was that, despite the alarmist title, there was not a panicked call for additional legislation.

The hearing launched with Congressman Upton touting his internet record -- notably the .kids domain, now .kids.us. Personally, I like the idea of .kids.us, though some disagree.

The witnesses were Katie Tarbox, who in 1995, at age 13, had been inadequately briefed on the "rules of the net" and disasterously agreed to meet a child predator she'd chatted with online; two local law enforcement personnel, John Karraker and Jim Gregart; Ruben Rodriguez, the Director of the Exploited Child Unit for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; Caroline Curtin, the Director of Children's Policy for AOL; and Kathleen Tucker, the Director of Curriculum Development for I-Safe America.

Everyone was concerned about keeping children safe online. It goes without saying that this is a desirable goal, as long as it's done in accordance with the Constitution and doesn't interfere with everyone else's legal use of the internet.

The problem is a serious one. Real kids are being lured into dangerous relationships over the internet; charges were filed in one more case here in Kalamazoo County just last week.

The preferred pickup method for child molesters nowadays is the internet: chat, instant-messaging, and email. The old tricks of "would you like some candy?" and "your parents were in an accident, I'll drive you to the hospital" -- those are yesterday's news. Kids growing up now need to be aware of different dangers, ones involving formation of long-term relationships, questions about online identity, and trust.

I wasn't able to find any reliable statistics on how often children are victimized using the internet. The best numbers I found were from a phone survey of 1,501 children, ages 10 to 17, who used the internet regularly. Of them, 19% had "received an unwanted sexual solicitation" (imprecisely defined) but only 3% had been solicited with "attempts or requests for offline contact" or actual offline contact.

And precisely 0 of the 1,501 children said they had been sexually contacted or assaulted due to online solicitations. This seems significant to me, given that 21% of all children -- statistically, hundreds of the children in the phone survey -- are sexually abused (by some definition of the term) before age 18. Unfortunately, 0 is not a number that extrapolates well to estimate how many of the United States's 70 million children will be physically victimized with help from the internet. But if I understand the numbers, it seems the internet is not the most likely source of danger.

A study called JOVIS is in the works and should provide some concrete numbers. According to Mr. Rodriguez, we can expect data from it in four to five months.

In any case, the message our lawmakers heard yesterday was not that we need more laws.

All six witnesses said, using almost the same words, that there is no substitute for parental involvement. Three called for more money and training for law enforcement, to give existing laws teeth. It sounds like law enforcement, especially at the state and local level, is still coming up to speed on this issue. And Ms. Curtin, for AOL, emphasized that ISPs were already taking steps, and suggested patience to allow them to develop an industry standard.

The testimony and discussion was so removed from proposing new legislation, in fact, that Rep. Bass seemed a little bored and annoyed. He had to remind everyone twice that he and his colleague were lawmakers: "As a member of Congress, I would like to hear what recommendations you have for what we might do -- I haven't heard anything about that so far. ... If I could reiterate: we make policy. This is a very interesting problem, but precisely what suggestions would you have for us as policymakers? If you could draft the bill, what would it say?"

Proposals were hesitant. Our local prosecutor suggested mandated inclusion of a CD with every new computer sale, which would explain how to keep children safe online. I'm not sure why existing explanations (here's one) are insufficient; why not just link? And Kathleen Tucker of I-Safe suggested standardizing on "digital certificates," client-side certs issued by an authority which confirms your identity using proof ranging from photo ID up to DNA (!) -- thus allowing children to verify that screen name BritneyRulez333 does not actually belong to a 45-year-old man.

That excepted, Ms. Tucker's testimony was refreshingly sound. She squarely faced the problem of child predators, and quoted Judith Krug of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom: children "need to be taught the skills to cope in the virtual world just as they are taught skills to cope in the physical world."

Parents aren't there to watch over kids every minute. Just as they learn to cross the street without holding an adult's hand, so they need to learn how to wander the internet safely. "The value of empowering our children, through education," she concluded, "with the knowledge and critical-thinking skills that they need to be able to independently assess the every-day situations they will encounter while online cannot be overstressed... Education and empowerment are key."

In my opinion, that's exactly right.

But I wonder how effectively government will be able to help alleviate the problem. Knowledge is key, but kids are, as usual, embracing and understanding change, while bored Congressmen sit behind tables and listen to prepared speeches. Last week, I contacted three students, ages 14 to 17, and asked them about their experiences chatting online.

What they thought, and what they reported their friends thought, was pretty savvy. They understand the dangers, are well aware of the internet's advantages, and know how to stay safe. One student reported:

If kids know not to give out their personal information, and what could happen if they do, then there is really no danger. I would feel like I was missing out on a lot if I didn't have the opportunities to communicate online. It gives me a chance to stay in touch with my current friends, make new friends, meet interesting people, and find a group where I feel like I belong.

Another student reported:

I chat to other people almost every night, or whenever I get the chance to. I do not see chatting on-line as being dangerous, or otherwise harmful. Sure you always hear those stories about 12 year old girls chatting with 45 year old men, but I see online chatting as a way for people with similar interests to discuss and debate interesting topics. ...I strongly believe that if you chat online with people that you do not know personally, you should figure out what this person is really like, and if you can trust them or not.

Finally, I traded several emails with one girl who had chatted online extensively for years, and has met in person "at least 10 or so" other kids whom she first found on AOL -- including a meeting with some boys from another state.

This might seem like a recipe for disaster. But, not only was her protocol for establishing trust detailed and thorough -- paranoid even -- but she readily explained to me her reasoning for each step along the way. She's a poster child for "education and empowerment." And I doubt she's unique:

How did I know to be careful about creeps on the internet? It would be hard not to know nowadays. With an Oprah special about it practically every week, and news documentaries and polls, the facts are pretty much right out there for you. It's like taking candy from a stranger, it's common sense I guess... The types who would fall prey to an online creep would just as easily be a victim to a creep in real life... If the topic of internet chat comes up in school, teachers will almost always preach about safety and weirdos and such. So pretty much the topic of internet safety is inescapable -- it just depends on how well you listen to it.

I hope that's true for every young person.

dsoltesz writes "Legislation that's been in the works to put a program in place to allow government techies to trade places with private sector counterparts for six to twelve month stints, just passed in the House. The government seems to be on the winning end of the Digital Tech Corps Act, until perhaps, the government IT workers realize the grass really is greener on the corporate side of the fence... If the bill makes it, it will be interesting to see if the concept actually gets implemented."

Irvu writes: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has an Action Alert on the SSSCA along with a sample letter. They are urging you to send it, or a variant of it, to your Senators and House reps. Click here to locate your rep's Homepage complete with Phone #'s. Click here to send e-mail to your House Rep. Click here for the Senate Homepages. And click here for their e-mail addresses. Personally I would suggest faxing or calling your reps or at least their local offices. Wads of paper and well-prepared phone calls seem to make more of an impression on them than e-mail. However you do it, it would be good for them to hear from the actual 'consumers' that they are so eager to malign/protect."

Irvu writes: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has an Action Alert on the SSSCA along with a sample letter. They are urging you to send it, or a variant of it, to your Senators and House reps. Click here to locate your rep's Homepage complete with Phone #'s. Click here to send e-mail to your House Rep. Click here for the Senate Homepages. And click here for their e-mail addresses. Personally I would suggest faxing or calling your reps or at least their local offices. Wads of paper and well-prepared phone calls seem to make more of an impression on them than e-mail. However you do it, it would be good for them to hear from the actual 'consumers' that they are so eager to malign/protect."

hillct writes: "Yesterday the House Committee on Science received newly released cyber security recommendations from Virginia Governor James S. Gilmore, III of the Gilmore Commission. Most disturbing among these recommendations was a call for "Establishment of a special 'Cyber Court' patterned after the court established in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"." See also the Wired story. Do we really need another secret, unaccountable court?

hillct writes: "Yesterday the House Committee on Science received newly released cyber security recommendations from Virginia Governor James S. Gilmore, III of the Gilmore Commission. Most disturbing among these recommendations was a call for "Establishment of a special 'Cyber Court' patterned after the court established in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"." See also the Wired story. Do we really need another secret, unaccountable court?

Imagine Slashdot closing its Your Rights Online section because you no longer have any rights online, and find many of your other rights severely curtailed, too. Saturday a small group of people, including U.S. Representative Lynn Rivers, from Michigan's 13th Congressional District, met in the University of Maryland Baltimore County [UMBC] library to discuss ways to maintain Americans' civil liberties despite major pressure to curtail them in the name of "fighting terrorism." The government does listen, you know, if you speak to the right people in the right way. So here's a guide, a HOWTO, if you will, that will teach you how to lobby effectively for your Constitutional rights.

Let's start with one simple and rather sad truth: You are going to be less free next week than you were last week.

We are already seeing what several newspapers have called "the biggest criminal investigation in history." Sure, a lot of this investigation's energy is being focused on Islamic countries, but it is also going on in Europe and, more than anywhere else, the United States itself. Landlords who have rented to young men with Arab-sounding names are being interrogated. Topless-bar patrons are being asked about conversations they allegedly heard, boasting about upcoming mass destruction.

And then there's email and the World Wide Web. Imagine a technically unhip Senator or Member of Congress who has read about Osama bin Laden allegedly using encrypted email and secret messages hidden in online porn to communicate with his followers and allies. Put the words "Osama bin Laden" in the same sentence as "pornography" and "the Internet," and you had better get out of the way of the avalanche of anti-online privacy laws coming your way -- or get crushed by them, even if people like bin Laden can switch to other means of communication at the drop of a hat.

Worse, disagreeing with the U.S. government right now may almost be viewed as treason in some quarters. "My Country, Right or Wrong" was a popular bumper sticker among the gunrack-and-confederate-flag pickup truck crowd in the late 60s, and this attitude, if not yet the bumper sticker itself, has been making a major comeback

But Dissent We Must
The problem with the "My Country, Right or Wrong" attitude is that it allows our government to go terribly wrong in many ways that may not be made right again for a long time, if ever. As Rep. Rivers pointed out Saturday, once laws are made that are supposed to help law enforcement in some way, they are almost never repealed because Members of Congress don't want to be seen as "soft on terrorism, soft on crime, soft on drugs."

Carry this a little farther. What about treason charges? At what point does it become illegal to speak out against a planned US government action that, on its face, is being taken to fight against the Terrorist Enemy, whoever he or she may be, even though that action may have very bad, long-term consequences for ordinary American citizens who want nothing more that to live their own lives quietly without being afraid of their own government?

Rep. Rivers said half the people in her district's gut reaction to the idea of legislation allowing government to read their email without getting a warrant first was along the lines of, "So what? I don't break any laws, so I have nothing to hide."

Long-time EPIC activist Kathleen Ellis told Rep. Rivers she believed questions about privacy should not be asked in the context of email. "Ask people if they should have the right to keep a secret and almost all of them will answer 'Of course,'" she said. Ellis also mentioned that cryptography is the email equivalent of an envelope on a letter sent by postal mail. "Unencrypted email is like a postcard," she said, "open for anyone to read. Ask people if they want all mail to be as open as a postcard and they're going to say no."

From that point on, the meeting focused on tactics. The question in the room wasn't, "Are privacy and freedom of speech good?" but "What can we do to protect our privacy and freedom of speech?"

Background on the Meeting Itself
The forum in which all this discussion took place was decidedly unofficial. It was an informal meeting thrown together hastily by local Linux user and ham radio afficianado Rob Carlson. Carlson sent a meeting notice to several email lists and posted it at cluebot.com. 13 people showed up at Saturday's gathering, most of whom were Baltimore and Washington D.C. area privacy advocates and/or Linux users. I was there myself for that reason. Wired News reporter Declan McCullagh is another "local" who hangs in the same circles, which explained his presence.

Rep. Rivers was there because her husband, William Simpson, is a computer consultant involved with the Internet Engineering Task Force [IETF] who spotted Carlson's notice on one of the cryptography-oriented email lists he's on. He had driven Rivers' chief of staff, who needed to get back to Washington but was marooned in Michigan by the airlines shutdown, to D.C., and was taking his Congresswoman wife back to her district for a little rest and some scheduled meetings (Congress had adjourned until Friday, Sept. 21), and they noticed that UMBC was on their way. So there they were, not dressed in "mover and shaker" clothing but looking like anyone else taking a 1000+ mile car trip.

One doesn't usually think of a Member of Congress fitting in with a group of downdressed geeks, but this one sure did. We only knew what she did for a living because Carlson asked everyone in the little circle to identify themselves by name and job, and when it was her turn Rep. Rivers gave her name as "Lynn," then added "Rivers," and softly, sort of as an aside, mentioned that she was "in Congress." Her husband had already mentioned that they were "from Michigan," which was curious enough in itself for a meeting with a decidedly local orientation. But Linux folks are friendly, and Rep. Rivers was as welcome as anyone else even though she was from out of town -- and freely admitted she used Mac OS, not Linux, both at home and in her office.

When he organized the meeting, Carlson said, "I didn't know whether no one or 100 people would show up." 13 did. And revolutions have started with as few as 13 people, so why shouldn't a strong pro-Constitution lobbying movement? The next step is to get 13 more, and another 13, and so on. This means calling and emailing friends until there are 13X13X13X13.... people talking to their elected representatives about privacy issues in terms they can understand, that will help them change their minds.

How You Can Lobby Against Anti-Privacy Laws
Start with this line Rep. Rivers laid on us, which is not new but needs to be said over and over: "Democracy is not a spectator sport."

Those Americans who don't vote, no matter how they excuse this failure, have no right to criticize their government. And those who don't bother to tell their elected representatives what they want and don't want their government to do should not act shocked when the government passes laws they don't like. It gets sickening, going to hearing after hearing about proposed laws like UCITA, DMCA, and SSSCA and always seeing a whole bunch of industry lobbyists wearing expensive suits, but hardly ever anyone who could be classified as an "ordinary citizen."

You need to make some noise instead of letting "them" talk while you sit around and let "them" get their way. Pump up the volume. Take some of the time you spend posting on Slashdot and register to vote. Write email and snail mail letters, send faxes, and make phone calls to Congresspeople and Senators and other representatives, and tell other people (13X13X13X13.... voices, remember) to do the same. This, not just complaining, is what this whole representative government thing is all about.

Rep. Rivers says phone calls "...have a sense of personal contact to them," and this makes them the most effective grassroots lobbying tool. "Stick to one issue," she advises. "Don't come up with a laundry list."

Also send email and write letters, even though they probably won't have as much impact as calls. And don't forget the fax machine; reps who are too technically unhip to read email read faxes. The ACLU and NRA have both famously used fax as a means of rapid communication with legislators for many years.

Now comes the matter of what to say. A letter, call or email that starts with something like, "I has nevir voted for you I am not registered to vote but you got to lisen to me," will go nowhere, says Rivers, pointing out that many pro-Napster messages she got were along those lines -- and got ignored. Better, she says, is something that tells your representative you are a computer professional (or manager or student or business owner or whatever) whose business, occupation or future will be hurt by whatever legislation you are working against. In this case (this week), privacy and online crypto are under attack. Next week, who knows?

So you're not a business owner? Know any? Know anyone who depends on privacy to transact their business? How about your doctor? Doesn't he or she want to keep patient records confidential? Ditto any lawyer you know. If a lawyer is serious about maintaining client trust, he or she certainly doesn't want the government snooping on email through Carnivore or a similar system with a less aggressive name. Other businesses have client information they want to private, along with trade secrets and other information they would rather not share with competitors. These are all points to bring up rationally, in an orderly debate format, when communicating with an elected rep, and they are ones you should ask others to bring up, too.

Stay calm, in other words. Assume your representative is sane and really wants to do what's right and what most people want, based on the input he or she gets. Your trick is to become part of that input, and right now the input you need to give must be strong and focused because Congress is caught up in post-attack hysteria and, like the rest of us, is saying, "We need to do something to help those poor victims and their families and make sure nothing this awful ever happens again."

The only problem here is that what Congress does is make laws, not post on Slashdot, and a law made in the same emotional heat as a flame post on Slashdot can't be moderated down to -1 after it is passed. Once that law is on the books, if you break it you can be arrested, tried, and fined or sent to jail. You've heard the saying, "If [guns/crypto/brains] are outlawed, only outlaws will have [guns/crypto/brains]." It's true, you know.

Right now, legitimate Americans are in danger of having many of their Constitutional freedoms revoked by a government that is doing its best, possibly in a misguided way, to protect its citizens. This is not about Disney's copyrights or the freedom to play DVDs on computers running Linux. The current debate is about much more basic issues than those, issues I will not repeat here because they have been written about so extensively elsewhere.

An Aside: How Congress Works
Rep. Rivers said it this way: "The House [of Representatives] is ruled by brute force."

Since she was talking to geeks who follow such things, she used the DMCA as an example. She told us that the "unanimous" vote that got DMCA through the House was not really unanimous at all; that the bill got through a committee dominated by a powerful chairman (which is how bills generally get to the floor for a vote) and that the Speaker called for a voice vote. "Most yelled 'Aye,'" Rivers said, and some yelled 'Nay.'"

The voices yelling "Aye" were the loudest, so DMCA passed by acclamation. Brute Force. People yelling at the top of their lungs. If 50 loud voices had yelled "Nay" instead of "Aye," perhaps we wouldn't have the DMCA as law today, and the EFF wouldn't be begging for money to get it overturned in the courts.

Now think about a Member of Congress who is hearing, right now, from all the "Kill-the-Arab-bastards-and-stamp-out-Internet-porn" crowd loudly and repeatedly by phone, fax, mail and email, but isn't hearing from you. Who is shouting the loudest? Which wheel is so squeaky that it is going to get the grease? So far, it's not the voices of reason and Constitutionality. They are getting drowned out. Heck, they are hardly there at all. At least Rep. Rivers isn't hearing them, and if she isn't hearing them -- with her ear attuned to Internet privacy matters and a totally Net-hip husband at her side -- you can bet the rest of Congress don't even know those voices (yours) exist.

Don't Delay! Do It Today!
Congress reconvenes Friday, September 21. The anti-privacy bills and anti-privacy amendments to various anti-terrorist bills are being written now, not someday. This means you must act immediately. If you put off those calls and emails to friends asking them to help support their right to communicate with each other in private, and to live without fear of police breaking down their doors or seizing their computer hard drives without warrants for even a few days, it is going to be too late. We are in the grip of national hysteria. A $40 billion appropriations bill to support the war on terrorism was passed a few days ago, with bipartisan support, almost without debate.

I'm going to admit that I am as ready to kick terrorist butt as anyone else, so I can't really blame Congress for being so gung-ho that it will pass all kinds of measures that will make America a less free country for decades to come in response to the current emergency. All I'm really asking Congress to do -- and asking you to join me in asking Congress to do, and to convince 13X13X13.... others to ask your Representative and your Senator to do -- is remember that the freedoms that make this country great must not be forgotten in our rush to avenge our fallen fellow Americans and our attempts to keep ourselves safe from future terrorist attacks.

Specifically (concentrate on one issue, remember), as a Net user I am concerned about watching our online privacy and freedoms evaporate if the government makes strong cryptography illegal or tries to have it controlled by agencies like the NSA, CIA, and FBI, or starts reading all of our private email without due cause and legitimate judicial warrants.

The deadline is Friday. That's when the legislative fur will start to fly. So let's get to work now!

• How to find your representative
• How to contact your senator

Imagine Slashdot closing its Your Rights Online section because you no longer have any rights online, and find many of your other rights severely curtailed, too. Saturday a small group of people, including U.S. Representative Lynn Rivers, from Michigan's 13th Congressional District, met in the University of Maryland Baltimore County [UMBC] library to discuss ways to maintain Americans' civil liberties despite major pressure to curtail them in the name of "fighting terrorism." The government does listen, you know, if you speak to the right people in the right way. So here's a guide, a HOWTO, if you will, that will teach you how to lobby effectively for your Constitutional rights.

Let's start with one simple and rather sad truth: You are going to be less free next week than you were last week.

We are already seeing what several newspapers have called "the biggest criminal investigation in history." Sure, a lot of this investigation's energy is being focused on Islamic countries, but it is also going on in Europe and, more than anywhere else, the United States itself. Landlords who have rented to young men with Arab-sounding names are being interrogated. Topless-bar patrons are being asked about conversations they allegedly heard, boasting about upcoming mass destruction.

And then there's email and the World Wide Web. Imagine a technically unhip Senator or Member of Congress who has read about Osama bin Laden allegedly using encrypted email and secret messages hidden in online porn to communicate with his followers and allies. Put the words "Osama bin Laden" in the same sentence as "pornography" and "the Internet," and you had better get out of the way of the avalanche of anti-online privacy laws coming your way -- or get crushed by them, even if people like bin Laden can switch to other means of communication at the drop of a hat.

Worse, disagreeing with the U.S. government right now may almost be viewed as treason in some quarters. "My Country, Right or Wrong" was a popular bumper sticker among the gunrack-and-confederate-flag pickup truck crowd in the late 60s, and this attitude, if not yet the bumper sticker itself, has been making a major comeback

But Dissent We Must
The problem with the "My Country, Right or Wrong" attitude is that it allows our government to go terribly wrong in many ways that may not be made right again for a long time, if ever. As Rep. Rivers pointed out Saturday, once laws are made that are supposed to help law enforcement in some way, they are almost never repealed because Members of Congress don't want to be seen as "soft on terrorism, soft on crime, soft on drugs."

Carry this a little farther. What about treason charges? At what point does it become illegal to speak out against a planned US government action that, on its face, is being taken to fight against the Terrorist Enemy, whoever he or she may be, even though that action may have very bad, long-term consequences for ordinary American citizens who want nothing more that to live their own lives quietly without being afraid of their own government?

Rep. Rivers said half the people in her district's gut reaction to the idea of legislation allowing government to read their email without getting a warrant first was along the lines of, "So what? I don't break any laws, so I have nothing to hide."

Long-time EPIC activist Kathleen Ellis told Rep. Rivers she believed questions about privacy should not be asked in the context of email. "Ask people if they should have the right to keep a secret and almost all of them will answer 'Of course,'" she said. Ellis also mentioned that cryptography is the email equivalent of an envelope on a letter sent by postal mail. "Unencrypted email is like a postcard," she said, "open for anyone to read. Ask people if they want all mail to be as open as a postcard and they're going to say no."

From that point on, the meeting focused on tactics. The question in the room wasn't, "Are privacy and freedom of speech good?" but "What can we do to protect our privacy and freedom of speech?"

Background on the Meeting Itself
The forum in which all this discussion took place was decidedly unofficial. It was an informal meeting thrown together hastily by local Linux user and ham radio afficianado Rob Carlson. Carlson sent a meeting notice to several email lists and posted it at cluebot.com. 13 people showed up at Saturday's gathering, most of whom were Baltimore and Washington D.C. area privacy advocates and/or Linux users. I was there myself for that reason. Wired News reporter Declan McCullagh is another "local" who hangs in the same circles, which explained his presence.

Rep. Rivers was there because her husband, William Simpson, is a computer consultant involved with the Internet Engineering Task Force [IETF] who spotted Carlson's notice on one of the cryptography-oriented email lists he's on. He had driven Rivers' chief of staff, who needed to get back to Washington but was marooned in Michigan by the airlines shutdown, to D.C., and was taking his Congresswoman wife back to her district for a little rest and some scheduled meetings (Congress had adjourned until Friday, Sept. 21), and they noticed that UMBC was on their way. So there they were, not dressed in "mover and shaker" clothing but looking like anyone else taking a 1000+ mile car trip.

One doesn't usually think of a Member of Congress fitting in with a group of downdressed geeks, but this one sure did. We only knew what she did for a living because Carlson asked everyone in the little circle to identify themselves by name and job, and when it was her turn Rep. Rivers gave her name as "Lynn," then added "Rivers," and softly, sort of as an aside, mentioned that she was "in Congress." Her husband had already mentioned that they were "from Michigan," which was curious enough in itself for a meeting with a decidedly local orientation. But Linux folks are friendly, and Rep. Rivers was as welcome as anyone else even though she was from out of town -- and freely admitted she used Mac OS, not Linux, both at home and in her office.

When he organized the meeting, Carlson said, "I didn't know whether no one or 100 people would show up." 13 did. And revolutions have started with as few as 13 people, so why shouldn't a strong pro-Constitution lobbying movement? The next step is to get 13 more, and another 13, and so on. This means calling and emailing friends until there are 13X13X13X13.... people talking to their elected representatives about privacy issues in terms they can understand, that will help them change their minds.

How You Can Lobby Against Anti-Privacy Laws
Start with this line Rep. Rivers laid on us, which is not new but needs to be said over and over: "Democracy is not a spectator sport."

Those Americans who don't vote, no matter how they excuse this failure, have no right to criticize their government. And those who don't bother to tell their elected representatives what they want and don't want their government to do should not act shocked when the government passes laws they don't like. It gets sickening, going to hearing after hearing about proposed laws like UCITA, DMCA, and SSSCA and always seeing a whole bunch of industry lobbyists wearing expensive suits, but hardly ever anyone who could be classified as an "ordinary citizen."

You need to make some noise instead of letting "them" talk while you sit around and let "them" get their way. Pump up the volume. Take some of the time you spend posting on Slashdot and register to vote. Write email and snail mail letters, send faxes, and make phone calls to Congresspeople and Senators and other representatives, and tell other people (13X13X13X13.... voices, remember) to do the same. This, not just complaining, is what this whole representative government thing is all about.

Rep. Rivers says phone calls "...have a sense of personal contact to them," and this makes them the most effective grassroots lobbying tool. "Stick to one issue," she advises. "Don't come up with a laundry list."

Also send email and write letters, even though they probably won't have as much impact as calls. And don't forget the fax machine; reps who are too technically unhip to read email read faxes. The ACLU and NRA have both famously used fax as a means of rapid communication with legislators for many years.

Now comes the matter of what to say. A letter, call or email that starts with something like, "I has nevir voted for you I am not registered to vote but you got to lisen to me," will go nowhere, says Rivers, pointing out that many pro-Napster messages she got were along those lines -- and got ignored. Better, she says, is something that tells your representative you are a computer professional (or manager or student or business owner or whatever) whose business, occupation or future will be hurt by whatever legislation you are working against. In this case (this week), privacy and online crypto are under attack. Next week, who knows?

So you're not a business owner? Know any? Know anyone who depends on privacy to transact their business? How about your doctor? Doesn't he or she want to keep patient records confidential? Ditto any lawyer you know. If a lawyer is serious about maintaining client trust, he or she certainly doesn't want the government snooping on email through Carnivore or a similar system with a less aggressive name. Other businesses have client information they want to private, along with trade secrets and other information they would rather not share with competitors. These are all points to bring up rationally, in an orderly debate format, when communicating with an elected rep, and they are ones you should ask others to bring up, too.

Stay calm, in other words. Assume your representative is sane and really wants to do what's right and what most people want, based on the input he or she gets. Your trick is to become part of that input, and right now the input you need to give must be strong and focused because Congress is caught up in post-attack hysteria and, like the rest of us, is saying, "We need to do something to help those poor victims and their families and make sure nothing this awful ever happens again."

The only problem here is that what Congress does is make laws, not post on Slashdot, and a law made in the same emotional heat as a flame post on Slashdot can't be moderated down to -1 after it is passed. Once that law is on the books, if you break it you can be arrested, tried, and fined or sent to jail. You've heard the saying, "If [guns/crypto/brains] are outlawed, only outlaws will have [guns/crypto/brains]." It's true, you know.

Right now, legitimate Americans are in danger of having many of their Constitutional freedoms revoked by a government that is doing its best, possibly in a misguided way, to protect its citizens. This is not about Disney's copyrights or the freedom to play DVDs on computers running Linux. The current debate is about much more basic issues than those, issues I will not repeat here because they have been written about so extensively elsewhere.

An Aside: How Congress Works
Rep. Rivers said it this way: "The House [of Representatives] is ruled by brute force."

Since she was talking to geeks who follow such things, she used the DMCA as an example. She told us that the "unanimous" vote that got DMCA through the House was not really unanimous at all; that the bill got through a committee dominated by a powerful chairman (which is how bills generally get to the floor for a vote) and that the Speaker called for a voice vote. "Most yelled 'Aye,'" Rivers said, and some yelled 'Nay.'"

The voices yelling "Aye" were the loudest, so DMCA passed by acclamation. Brute Force. People yelling at the top of their lungs. If 50 loud voices had yelled "Nay" instead of "Aye," perhaps we wouldn't have the DMCA as law today, and the EFF wouldn't be begging for money to get it overturned in the courts.

Now think about a Member of Congress who is hearing, right now, from all the "Kill-the-Arab-bastards-and-stamp-out-Internet-porn" crowd loudly and repeatedly by phone, fax, mail and email, but isn't hearing from you. Who is shouting the loudest? Which wheel is so squeaky that it is going to get the grease? So far, it's not the voices of reason and Constitutionality. They are getting drowned out. Heck, they are hardly there at all. At least Rep. Rivers isn't hearing them, and if she isn't hearing them -- with her ear attuned to Internet privacy matters and a totally Net-hip husband at her side -- you can bet the rest of Congress don't even know those voices (yours) exist.

Don't Delay! Do It Today!
Congress reconvenes Friday, September 21. The anti-privacy bills and anti-privacy amendments to various anti-terrorist bills are being written now, not someday. This means you must act immediately. If you put off those calls and emails to friends asking them to help support their right to communicate with each other in private, and to live without fear of police breaking down their doors or seizing their computer hard drives without warrants for even a few days, it is going to be too late. We are in the grip of national hysteria. A $40 billion appropriations bill to support the war on terrorism was passed a few days ago, with bipartisan support, almost without debate.

I'm going to admit that I am as ready to kick terrorist butt as anyone else, so I can't really blame Congress for being so gung-ho that it will pass all kinds of measures that will make America a less free country for decades to come in response to the current emergency. All I'm really asking Congress to do -- and asking you to join me in asking Congress to do, and to convince 13X13X13.... others to ask your Representative and your Senator to do -- is remember that the freedoms that make this country great must not be forgotten in our rush to avenge our fallen fellow Americans and our attempts to keep ourselves safe from future terrorist attacks.

Specifically (concentrate on one issue, remember), as a Net user I am concerned about watching our online privacy and freedoms evaporate if the government makes strong cryptography illegal or tries to have it controlled by agencies like the NSA, CIA, and FBI, or starts reading all of our private email without due cause and legitimate judicial warrants.

The deadline is Friday. That's when the legislative fur will start to fly. So let's get to work now!

• How to find your representative
• How to contact your senator

jessemckinney writes "Apparently, the US congress of last year cut the funding of this great satellite project after it was finished. It will now take millions of dollars (us) to refuel and recalibrate the instruments. Why do politicians have to kill great science projects for their own political vandettas?"

camusflage writes: "MSNBC has an article that says Representatives Rick Boucher and Chris Cannon are set to introduce legislation that will attempt to control how copyright law treats digital music, and how royalties for it are paid. Among the things the legislation is said to address is what constitutes archival and incidental copying, in-store samples, and 'extending the mechanical compulsory license to Internet file-swapping.' The article goes on to say that the RIAA previously indicated openness to the licensing, while publishers and songwriters oppose it." See also ZDNet or Reuters (this link is the best summary of the bill). And if you've got the stomach to wade through copyright law, read the bill itself. Keep in mind that introducing a bill is a long long way from making any changes in the law, and even this bill doesn't necessarily solve all of the current problems with copyright law.

camusflage writes: "MSNBC has an article that says Representatives Rick Boucher and Chris Cannon are set to introduce legislation that will attempt to control how copyright law treats digital music, and how royalties for it are paid. Among the things the legislation is said to address is what constitutes archival and incidental copying, in-store samples, and 'extending the mechanical compulsory license to Internet file-swapping.' The article goes on to say that the RIAA previously indicated openness to the licensing, while publishers and songwriters oppose it." See also ZDNet or Reuters (this link is the best summary of the bill). And if you've got the stomach to wade through copyright law, read the bill itself. Keep in mind that introducing a bill is a long long way from making any changes in the law, and even this bill doesn't necessarily solve all of the current problems with copyright law.