Slashdot Mirror

A dog'n'pony show is that delightful moment where some $1000 suits and the investors wearing them politely demand to be shown why they've paid you a salary for the last three months without hearing anything back except "we're all working hard here" and "stop bothering us and it'll get done faster." You pray the software works as well now as it did at 5AM when you finally killed the last display bug and headed home for a quick shower. Just two words of advice: don't cheat. Like VisuaLABS did with its "tiled LCD screens," or the Pentagon with its "missile defense test," you'll get caught. ...or will you? Tell us your best demo war stories.

Thanks to coli for passing along last Thursday's press release from VisuaLABS. This is a company that has been telling investors that they have what they call "GroutFree(tm)" technology, which joins multiple LCD screens invisibly into one, large, flat screen.

On July 3rd, investors were wowed by the demo of the company's "42 inch diagonal flat screen display" prototype. Sheldon Zelitt, VisuaLABS' Chairman and Chief Scientist, said, "It was our great pleasure to share an early look at that technology with our loyal shareholders at the Shareholders' Meeting."

And on July 26th, we got another press release -- this one titled "VisuaLABS Announces That Its Primary Technologies Are Not As Represented And Dismisses Sheldon Zelitt." It turns out that "the large screen GroutFree prototype demonstrated at the Annual Meeting was, in fact, a standard 42 inch plasma television purchased by Sheldon Zelitt ... at a local Calgary consumer electronics retailer ... The Committee believes that no working prototype of a device incorporating the GroutFree technology exists."

While all this was going on, the Pentagon was busy launching two missiles and making them smack into each other. This is the missile defense justification, the one scientists say can't be done, the umbrella that will protect the U.S. and its allies from all those Third World dictators who just have to deliver their nuclear warheads the hard way.

The big test came on July 14, when a target missile (avoiding mishaps) was launched and successfully blown to pieces by its interceptor. Bush was "pleased." CNN showed us the debris radar. And Michael Kelly of the Washington Post stuck it to the "liberal critics," pointing out that "The 'Smart People' Were Wrong." As he wrote:

"In the blink of a video screen going blinding white on July 14, it became impossible to offhandedly disdain a missile defense system as 'weapons that don't work.' It does work."

Yep! So phase one of our missile defense plan is complete. Now we go on to phase two, which is to convince all our enemies to install GPS transmitters in all their missiles.

Oh, you didn't know the test missile had a GPS transmitter on board? Well, you do now.

My favorite part is that the test missile actually launched a Mylar balloon as "chaff" to try to fool the "kill vehicle." Luckily, the balloon didn't have GPS.

So what's your favorite dog'n'pony story? Ever had a demo fail in some especially embarrassing way? Ever cheated? Ever get caught? C'mon, you can tell us...

Update: 08/01 08:00 PM by J : I'm seeing a lot of discussion of the relevance of the GPS. Here's Defense Week which claims the "prototype interceptor was able to find a target warhead partly because the target signaled its location to the interceptor for much of the flight, and the transmissions formed the basis of the targeting orders."

And thanks as always to Slashdot readers for posting more information. monopole points out this link, or take your pick, this one -- they're plans from last year, but still interesting:

SR. DEFENSE OFFICIAL: And we take the GPS data, and we fuzz it up quite honestly, because GPS is a lot more accurate than radars. Okay? [...]

Q: Well, actually, would you then use the degraded GPS, or would you just the regular GPS that you use as a fallback -- (inaudible word)?

SR. DEFENSE OFFICIAL: (Inaudible.)

STAFF: Use the regular GPS.

SR. DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Regular GPS.

imipak writes: "The BBC report that a Congressional Report on file sharing software has wheeled in that trusty old warhorse that always seems to turn up in government attempts to restrict freedom: children and pr0n. Apparently, "search for the word 'porn' on BearShare results in more than 25,000 entries, many of them video files." Who'd a'thunk it?" Don't miss the actual report, which makes for amusing reading, especially the carefully blotted-out screenshots.

hamhocks writes "Tech Law Journal sent out an update on Congressional Hearings regarding the future of the WHOIS database. The update includes links to statements made by both Representatives and witnesses at the hearing. Some quotable quotes are below."

• 'It seems eminently clear to me that websites conducting e-commerce have little "right to privacy". . .[however] isn't political speech worth protecting by redacting the personally identifiable contact information for the website owner?' -- Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)

• 'Given that the compilers of marketing lists have for years used Whois registration information as a source of personal information (in some cases scavenged free, in others bought from registrars), concerns over the data privacy are well justified. Most people avoid putting their home address on their web sites, and they should be able to register a domain name without effectively giving up this precaution. The public policy objective of privacy law is to preserve the individual's right to privacy, while still permitting societal participation.' -- Dr. Jason Catlett, President and CEO, Junkbusters Corp

• 'As it stands today an accredited domain name registrar is not required to allow domain name registrants to opt-out of having their personal information provided to third parties for marketing purposes. This type of an opt-out should be provided to all registrants.' -- Lori Fena, Chairman of the Board, TrustE

• 'In 2000, the IDSA used authority provided in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to achieve approximately 3000 "takedowns" of infringing material on the Internet. Over the last year we also filed 10 civil lawsuits against Internet pirates as enforcement actions on behalf of our members, assisted in additional actions brought by member companies, and made a number of criminal referrals to law enforcement. This is in addition to thousands more takedowns and numerous lawsuits initiated individually by our member companies. These accomplishments are reflective of similar successes reported by the other copyright-based industries. DMCA self-help allows us to reduce to a fraction the losses we would suffer if limited only to court-imposed process and remedies. These efforts are made much less effective without the unrestricted access we currently have to WHOIS data, including contact information regarding domain name registrants.' -- Stevan D. Mitchell Vice President, Intellectual Property Policy Interactive Digital Software Association

• 'In fact, if anything, the I[nternational]A[nti]C[ounterfeiting] C[oalition] believes that registrants should be required to improve their performance in insuring that domain name registrants provide correct and updated information. Because a person (legal or individual) voluntarily chooses to be present on the Internet, the identity and contact information of domain name registrants are entitled to no more privacy protection than are a business or home addresses in the physical world.' -- Timothy P. Trainer, President, International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC)

• 'The breadth of these issues indicates that Congress should not act too quickly. We are dealing simultaneously with intellectual property rights, privacy rights, and free speech rights and cannot simply play a legislative game of [rock, scissors, paper] to figure which one should win in the end.' -- Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI)

Additional information:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/internetp rivacyhrgstmt71201.pdf"

hamhocks writes "Tech Law Journal sent out an update on Congressional Hearings regarding the future of the WHOIS database. The update includes links to statements made by both Representatives and witnesses at the hearing. Some quotable quotes are below."

• 'It seems eminently clear to me that websites conducting e-commerce have little "right to privacy". . .[however] isn't political speech worth protecting by redacting the personally identifiable contact information for the website owner?' -- Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)

• 'Given that the compilers of marketing lists have for years used Whois registration information as a source of personal information (in some cases scavenged free, in others bought from registrars), concerns over the data privacy are well justified. Most people avoid putting their home address on their web sites, and they should be able to register a domain name without effectively giving up this precaution. The public policy objective of privacy law is to preserve the individual's right to privacy, while still permitting societal participation.' -- Dr. Jason Catlett, President and CEO, Junkbusters Corp

• 'As it stands today an accredited domain name registrar is not required to allow domain name registrants to opt-out of having their personal information provided to third parties for marketing purposes. This type of an opt-out should be provided to all registrants.' -- Lori Fena, Chairman of the Board, TrustE

• 'In 2000, the IDSA used authority provided in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to achieve approximately 3000 "takedowns" of infringing material on the Internet. Over the last year we also filed 10 civil lawsuits against Internet pirates as enforcement actions on behalf of our members, assisted in additional actions brought by member companies, and made a number of criminal referrals to law enforcement. This is in addition to thousands more takedowns and numerous lawsuits initiated individually by our member companies. These accomplishments are reflective of similar successes reported by the other copyright-based industries. DMCA self-help allows us to reduce to a fraction the losses we would suffer if limited only to court-imposed process and remedies. These efforts are made much less effective without the unrestricted access we currently have to WHOIS data, including contact information regarding domain name registrants.' -- Stevan D. Mitchell Vice President, Intellectual Property Policy Interactive Digital Software Association

• 'In fact, if anything, the I[nternational]A[nti]C[ounterfeiting] C[oalition] believes that registrants should be required to improve their performance in insuring that domain name registrants provide correct and updated information. Because a person (legal or individual) voluntarily chooses to be present on the Internet, the identity and contact information of domain name registrants are entitled to no more privacy protection than are a business or home addresses in the physical world.' -- Timothy P. Trainer, President, International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC)

• 'The breadth of these issues indicates that Congress should not act too quickly. We are dealing simultaneously with intellectual property rights, privacy rights, and free speech rights and cannot simply play a legislative game of [rock, scissors, paper] to figure which one should win in the end.' -- Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI)

Additional information:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/internetp rivacyhrgstmt71201.pdf"

hamhocks writes "Tech Law Journal sent out an update on Congressional Hearings regarding the future of the WHOIS database. The update includes links to statements made by both Representatives and witnesses at the hearing. Some quotable quotes are below."

• 'It seems eminently clear to me that websites conducting e-commerce have little "right to privacy". . .[however] isn't political speech worth protecting by redacting the personally identifiable contact information for the website owner?' -- Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)

• 'Given that the compilers of marketing lists have for years used Whois registration information as a source of personal information (in some cases scavenged free, in others bought from registrars), concerns over the data privacy are well justified. Most people avoid putting their home address on their web sites, and they should be able to register a domain name without effectively giving up this precaution. The public policy objective of privacy law is to preserve the individual's right to privacy, while still permitting societal participation.' -- Dr. Jason Catlett, President and CEO, Junkbusters Corp

• 'As it stands today an accredited domain name registrar is not required to allow domain name registrants to opt-out of having their personal information provided to third parties for marketing purposes. This type of an opt-out should be provided to all registrants.' -- Lori Fena, Chairman of the Board, TrustE

• 'In 2000, the IDSA used authority provided in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to achieve approximately 3000 "takedowns" of infringing material on the Internet. Over the last year we also filed 10 civil lawsuits against Internet pirates as enforcement actions on behalf of our members, assisted in additional actions brought by member companies, and made a number of criminal referrals to law enforcement. This is in addition to thousands more takedowns and numerous lawsuits initiated individually by our member companies. These accomplishments are reflective of similar successes reported by the other copyright-based industries. DMCA self-help allows us to reduce to a fraction the losses we would suffer if limited only to court-imposed process and remedies. These efforts are made much less effective without the unrestricted access we currently have to WHOIS data, including contact information regarding domain name registrants.' -- Stevan D. Mitchell Vice President, Intellectual Property Policy Interactive Digital Software Association

• 'In fact, if anything, the I[nternational]A[nti]C[ounterfeiting] C[oalition] believes that registrants should be required to improve their performance in insuring that domain name registrants provide correct and updated information. Because a person (legal or individual) voluntarily chooses to be present on the Internet, the identity and contact information of domain name registrants are entitled to no more privacy protection than are a business or home addresses in the physical world.' -- Timothy P. Trainer, President, International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC)

• 'The breadth of these issues indicates that Congress should not act too quickly. We are dealing simultaneously with intellectual property rights, privacy rights, and free speech rights and cannot simply play a legislative game of [rock, scissors, paper] to figure which one should win in the end.' -- Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI)

Additional information:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/internetp rivacyhrgstmt71201.pdf"

sil points to an article at Wired which says that Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress (specifically, the House Judiciary Committee) this week that "Justice Department prosecutors would help state officials imprison sex-site operators that feature obscene images." "I wonder how one would be affected on the international level. So much for freedom of speech, and expression." says sil. Full article on Wired.

BoKnowsBeer writes: "H.R. 1486 - Sponsor: Rep Grucci, Felix J., Jr.. Title: To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to require schools and libraries receiving universal service assistance to block access to Internet services that enable users to access the World Wide Web and transfer electronic mail in an anonymous manner." Grucci is quoted as saying privacy sites are used to recruit children into militant, pro-environmental causes. I want some of what he's been smoking. Meanwhile, Representative Billy Tauzin, who has forgotten that he lives in the U.S., put forward HR 2420, which will eliminate all of the requirements on the Baby Bell companies which keep them from destroying the competing exchange carriers, and finish off any remaining competition from DSL carriers such as Covad and Northpoint, which would no longer be permitted to lease space in the telcos' Central Offices for their DSL equipment. But the CLEC's are rallying - they went to their congressmen, handed them the requisite bags of cash, and got their own bill to rally behind.

BoKnowsBeer writes: "H.R. 1486 - Sponsor: Rep Grucci, Felix J., Jr.. Title: To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to require schools and libraries receiving universal service assistance to block access to Internet services that enable users to access the World Wide Web and transfer electronic mail in an anonymous manner." Grucci is quoted as saying privacy sites are used to recruit children into militant, pro-environmental causes. I want some of what he's been smoking. Meanwhile, Representative Billy Tauzin, who has forgotten that he lives in the U.S., put forward HR 2420, which will eliminate all of the requirements on the Baby Bell companies which keep them from destroying the competing exchange carriers, and finish off any remaining competition from DSL carriers such as Covad and Northpoint, which would no longer be permitted to lease space in the telcos' Central Offices for their DSL equipment. But the CLEC's are rallying - they went to their congressmen, handed them the requisite bags of cash, and got their own bill to rally behind.

BoKnowsBeer writes: "H.R. 1486 - Sponsor: Rep Grucci, Felix J., Jr.. Title: To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to require schools and libraries receiving universal service assistance to block access to Internet services that enable users to access the World Wide Web and transfer electronic mail in an anonymous manner." Grucci is quoted as saying privacy sites are used to recruit children into militant, pro-environmental causes. I want some of what he's been smoking. Meanwhile, Representative Billy Tauzin, who has forgotten that he lives in the U.S., put forward HR 2420, which will eliminate all of the requirements on the Baby Bell companies which keep them from destroying the competing exchange carriers, and finish off any remaining competition from DSL carriers such as Covad and Northpoint, which would no longer be permitted to lease space in the telcos' Central Offices for their DSL equipment. But the CLEC's are rallying - they went to their congressmen, handed them the requisite bags of cash, and got their own bill to rally behind.

renard writes: "The LA Times is running a story, which I have not seen mirrored elsewhere, on how the TV manufacturers are banding together to encrypt digital television. The stated goal: you watch when - and only when - the broadcasters say you can watch. No duplication (well - maybe analog); no time-shifting. Our friend Rep. Rick Boucher raises the question of whether this will undermine consumers' fair use rights. Undermine? How about `obliterate'?" One quibble with the article - when it talks about Firewire, it actually means the Digital Transmission Content Protection spec., which is implemented over Firewire. So your television may exchange data with various other boxen via Firewire connections, but data passing over them will be encrypted and will only pass with the permission of the copyright holder.

Okay, the answers to your questions for U.S. Representative Rick Boucher are in. No, his staff didn't write them. Everything you see here is straight from the Congressman himself. This is a nice bit of insight into legislative thinking about the Internet, and gives a little info on how you can help change laws you don't like, too.

1) Protecting our rights
by techmuse

The general trend since the Internet became a mass public resource has been for government to attempt to find ways to monitor people using it (Carnivore for example), to listen in on their communications (Key escrow), or to use the Internet as a means to remove consumer rights in favor of total control by businesses (DCMA). How do you feel about these technologies and laws, and how do you propose to keep the Internet a place where ordinary citizens can communicate and conduct business without giving up the rights that they have in the physical world?

Rep. Boucher:

There is a constant need for vigilance in the protection of the rights of Internet users. Several years ago as we were debating legislation of I co-authored to permit the export of strong encryption software from the United States, the FBI proposed an amendment which would have imposed the first restriction on the use of encryption software domestically. Specifically, the FBI's amendment would have required that every encryption product contain a back door which could be opened with a key held by a third party. This so-called "key escrow" requirement posed a major threat to freedom from the prying eyes of law enforcement for all Internet users. Working with other members of the House Commerce Committee who shared my opposition to the amendment, we succeeded in defeating the measure by the impressive vote of 30 to 10. I do not anticipate the key escrow requirement, or a similar key recovery requirement, being seriously debated by the Congress again. Nevertheless, we must continually work to protect the openness of the Internet and the rights of Internet users from attacks which may come from many directions, including law-enforcement, the copyright owning community, and those who would filter the Internet because of a variety of social concerns.

2) Copyright laws
by Chakat

Let me preface this by saying that I respect copyright, and feel that creators deserve a limited period of time to enjoy sole profits from their works. However, it's become obvious that special intrests have corrupted the copyright system to insure that they can receive sole benefits for long after our founding fathers intended. My question for you is twofold: How long do you feel is an appropriate amount of time for copyright protection, and is there legislation pending to fix the problem with copyright?

Rep. Boucher:

The recent extension of the copyright term by the Congress was wholly unjustified. The United States Constitution establishes a regime of intellectual property protection and specifies that exclusive rights in original works should be preserved for the creator of the works for a "limited time". I am concerned that the very wealthy copyright owning community, including motion picture studios, recording companies and publishers have seriously unbalanced the Congressional process in the creation and amendment of intellectual property laws with the result that the "limited time" concept has largely been forgotten. I'm particularly troubled by provisions of the digital millennium copyright act which threaten the long-established fair use rights of American citizens, and I am in the process of drafting broad-based legislation which will reaffirm traditional fair use rights for the users of information.

3) Why
by SpanishInquisition

in the USA is it legal to possess a piece of equipment designed to kill a human being but it's illegal to possess a piece of software designed to copy the content of a DVD?

Rep. Boucher:

The most troublesome provision of the digital millennium copyright act is found in section 1201 (a ) (1) which makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to produce a device which is "primarily designed" for the purpose of infringing a copyright. This provision is fraught with problems, not the least of which is the impossibility of knowing at the time a device which has multiple uses is manufactured whether a judge or jury will find at a later time that the device was "primarily designed" for an infringing use. More than 20 years ago, the United States Supreme Court in the Betamax case held that if a device has both infringing and non infringing uses, its manufacture is lawful due to the presence of non infringing uses. Section 1201 adversely affects that long-standing doctrine and will hinder the willingness of equipment manufactures to introduce devices which could potentially be used to infringe copyrights even if the device has many helpful non infringing uses. Eventually, a modification of this section of the code will be required.

4) How do you keep up?
by wmulvihillDxR

With the recent story on the flooding of emails to representatives, I want to know how you deal with that flood? Do you rate snail mail a higher priority than email?

Rep. Boucher:

Electronic mail receives the same dignity in my office that is accorded to every other communication which we receive. We prioritize our responses to incoming information based upon the urgency of the material not based upon the medium by which the communication was received. Accordingly, electronic mail has the same dignity in my office that is accorded to paper mail, faxes and telephone calls. Unlike many congressional offices which responde to electronic mail by regular mail, we respond to electronic mail over the Internet. My staff forwards to my desktop computer incoming e-mail along with a suggested response which I then edit and approve for delivery by electronic means to the constituent.

5) Taxes and the Internet
by Aggrazel

This year, in my home state of Ohio, the legislation introduced a "Voluntary" tax on Interenet purchases. That is, I can tell them that I purchased X amount of books online and they'll tax me accordingly.

Even though this tax is "Voluntary" I have been informed by my accountant that I have to pay this tax, reguardless. Thereby, my state is taxing purchases that were made "out of state" as it were.

My question is, how do you feel about taxation of the internet, specifically "Voluntary" ones like the State of Ohio has implemented?

Rep. Boucher:

Most states impose a "use tax" on purchases made by residents of the state from out-of-state retailers. The use tax is at the same rate as the sales tax imposed by the state on products purchased within the state. Accordingly, we all have an obligation to pay to the state in which we reside a use tax on all the items we purchase from out-of-state. The use tax applies whether we purchase the item over the telephone, through a catelogue order or over the Web. The State of Ohio through the device mentioned in the question is attempting to assert a collection mechanism for its use tax. There are no congressional proposals pending which would prohibit states from collecting use taxes on purchases made from out-of-state retailers. In fact, I doubt that such a proposal at the federal level would be constitutional. We are presently having a debate on the extension of the moratorium which expires this coming October on the imposition of taxes on Internet service providers and the imposition of any tax which has a discriminatory effect with respect to the Internet. I support the extension of the Internet tax moratorium. Some members of Congress are now urging that legislation be adopted which would facilitate the escrow of sales taxes on all out-of-state purchases, whether the purchases are made over the Web, by telephone or by catalog order. The proposal is supported by many states and by traditional brick and mortor retailers who do not have an interstate business. I seriously doubt that the Congress will give active consideration to this proposal at the present time; however, in future years, as electronic commerce occupies a greater percentage of all commerce, the proposal may gain added currency.

6) Taking back the 'Net
by RareHeintz

Much recent technology legislation - most notably the DMCA and UCITA - seem unreasonably skewed toward large corporate interests seeking copyright, patent, and licensing protections in the digital world they don't enjoy in the analog world. I don't think it's a secret to anyone that such legislation is all but purchased outright through campaign contributions and soft-money party donations.

Many American citizens, unfortunately, don't have sufficient education or interest to be able to assess how technology legislation affects them, their wallets, and the media they consume, and the mainstream media don't help them understand the technical issues, the legislative process, or the influence of money in politics any better.

My question related to this is: What can the more technically-aware citizenry do to steer the law back to a more reasonable course? How can we convince or coerce our elected representatives into replacing sane limits on copyright, sane policy toward retail taxation in digital markets, and a sane approach to regulating the Internet that recoginizes the opportunites and limitations inherent in the medium?

Rep. Boucher:

I am in the process of drafting comprehensive legislation which will reaffirm the fair use rights of the users of information and create a better balance between the copyright owners, who currently dominate the Congressional debates on intellectual property measures, and the users of copyrighted information. My measure will be strongly supported by universities and libraries throughout the nation. It will be strongly opposed by motion picture companies, the recording industry and book publishers. Our only chance of enacting our proposal into law will be through the formation of a broad grassroots effort nationwide. As a part of our grassroots effort, I am collecting the electronic mail addresses of individuals who will serve as "activists" on behalf of our measure. From time to time, we will call on these individuals to contact their member of Congress and encourage the legislator to support the passage of our bill or to assist us in defeating hostile amendments which are being offered by those who oppose us. I would encourage anyone interested in assisting our effort to send their electronic mail address to jody.olson @mail.house.gov

Jody is one of my staff members, and he will treat all information we receive in accordance with the privacy policy posted on my WebSite. I would also encourage interested individuals to contact their friends who share our goals and encourage them to forward their electronic mail addresses to Jody.

7) Overall cluefulness?
by update()

A few years ago, it seemed like legislation was being passed to regulate the Inetrnet without the most basic knowledge of how it works. One got the impression that legislators thought the Net is like television and that it would be straightforward for US laws to control its content.

Today, people may argue with a lot of the laws being passed but it seems to me that at least lawmakers now understand what it is that they're trying to control - that it's not television and that it's not inside the United States. Is that perception correct? Do most members of the House and Senate at least have a rough idea of what the internet is? Do all of them at least have a high-ranking staffer who does?

Rep. Boucher:

In 1996, I was one of two cofounders of the Congressional Internet Caucus. We founded the Caucus in the wake of the disastrous debate on the so-called communications decency act which was made a part of the telecommunications act of 1996. Those of us who opposed the communications decency act argued that it was impossible to implement given the architecture of the Internet and that it was unconstitutional on its face as an abridgment of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech. By a very narrow vote, the communications decency act was approved, and predictably the United States Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional by a unanimous vote of 9 -- 0. It was apparent from an observation of the debate on the communications decency act that most members of Congress did not understand the fundamental structure of the Internet and its capabilities and limitations. Accordingly, we formed the Internet Caucus as an educational forum to provide information about Internet functionality to members. We wanted to make sure that when future policy debates affecting the Internet are before the Congress that members would make their decisions with a sound foundation of knowledge about the Internet's capabilities and limitations. Today, the Internet Caucus has more than 145 members. It is the largest and most active Caucus in the Congress, and I am pleased to serve as one of two House cochairs of the Caucus. Each year, we host a variety of seminars on the current policy challenges affecting the Internet, and we present knowledgeable speakers who offer views, both pro and con, on the most important information technology policy matters we are considering. Our sessions well attended by members of Congress , and I believe that we have achieved the goal of ensuring that members make their decisions with adequate knowledge about the Internet's functionality.

8) Free Speech and Computer Code by IanCarlson

Congressman Boucher--

I applaude your questioning of some of the facets of the DMCA, and as a resident of Virginia, I am quite proud that an elected official from my state is one of the first to question these overly restrictive copyright laws. Your fight for the people will not go unnoticed.

I have a question pertaining to uncompiled code and freedom of speech. My understanding is that source code is just language, like that of an essay or poem. Essays and poems cannot (for the most part) be "banned" by the government as they are First Amendment protected speech.

How is it that high-powered organizations like the MPAA have won lawsuits against web sites that have done nothing more than make a link to uncompiled code? Aren't these sites and the programmers that wrote the code protected under First Amendment free speech?

Rep. Boucher:

I need to learn more about the precise circumstance in which links to Web sites that contain uncompiled code have been taken down pursuant to requests from the copyright owners. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient information to answer this question of the present time.

9) Government playing catch-up, and losing.
by plastickiwi

DISCLAIMER: I am one of Rep. Boucher's constituents here in the ninth congressional district of Virginia. I've also voted for him five times. Consume the appropriate volume of NaCl.

Rep. Boucher,

Professor Clay Shirky spoke at length in a recent Slashdot interview about the desperate efforts being made by corporate interests to hobble the Internet. He noted that companies are so loathe to change their business models that they would rather bolt the existing business infrastructure onto the Internet than create a new business environment better suited to the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the online world. For example, Napster sent the recording industry into a tailspin because, despite billions in "e-tailing" investment, that industry still deals primarily in physical artifacts (i.e. compact discs) instead of pure data.

What, if anything, should the federal government be doing to assist the transition from "meatspace" business models to networked models? Should Congress, as Senator Hatch recently mused in the Napster hearings, actually go so far as to compel this transition through legislation (e.g. mandatory licensing of intellectual property)?

Rep. Boucher:

Every farsighted business will adopt a Web strategy both to enhance its own profitability and to assure its survival. The question relates to the music industry, and I will offer my views regarding the much-publicized debate about the availability of music over the Internet. I have long urged the recording industry to create its own Web sites upon which the most popular music will be made available for download over the Internet for a reasonable fee. Today, most of the music that is available for a fee on line is exotic. The popular songs are generally not available. The recording industry is still clinging to its traditional practice of selling music as a part of an album and making the CD which contains the album available through physical record stores or by mail delivery. The industry's strategy of attempting to sue out of existence every Web based music delivery service is doomed to long-term failure. The industry is simply going to have to go beyond its traditional practices and start making its highest value music available over the Internet. The failure of the record labels to do so has driven millions of American music lovers to Napster. When the music industry makes its most popular music available over the Internet for download for a reasonable fee, either through its own sites or by a licensing of Napster, it will enjoy a dramatic expansion in the market for music. The industry will be significantly enriched, and Internet users will have the convenience of being able to obtain immediately the most popular music for a reasonable fee. It is too early to predict the response the Congress may provide if the music industry continues to resist the Internet as a delivery mechanism. I can say however, with certainty that there are a number of members of Congress who share my view that the music industry whas been shortsighted in failing to realize the many benefits of the Internet as a delivery mechanism for music.

10) Just who is answering these questions?
by washirv

Rep Boucher,

I am interested in knowing who the actual person replying to these questions is. Does the representative answer the questions? Or does it go to his staff and come back with canned answers from his staff? Does Rep Boucher at least read the questions so he knows what Slashdotters want to know? Thanks

Rep. Boucher:

I have personally answered these questions through the use of the Dragon NaturallySpeaking software which I use on the computer at my home when composing text.

U.S.Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) has co-sponsored an anti-spamming bill, questioned some of the DMCA, and has been asked by at least one online notable to think about a tax credit for Open Source coders. He's also a member of the Congressional Internet Caucus. We can think of no federal lawmaker more qualified to give us insight into the nitty-gritty of the legislative process, especially as it relates to the Internet. Our usual interview rules apply: post your questions below (one question per post, please), we'll forward 10 - 12 of the highest-moderated ones to Rep. Boucher, and will post his answers next week.

JiveDonut writes "Our friend Rich Boucher (D-VA) along with Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) have introduced the Anti Spamming Act of 2001. An article can be found at the Roanoke Times site. Penalties include up to 12 months in jail and fines of $15,000 or $10 per e-mail. Bi-partisan support to reduce spam. At least the parties can agree on something." 30-40% of my mail is junkmail (most of which is caught and filtered). I'd like to know more details, but this could be great if done properly.

JiveDonut writes "Our friend Rich Boucher (D-VA) along with Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) have introduced the Anti Spamming Act of 2001. An article can be found at the Roanoke Times site. Penalties include up to 12 months in jail and fines of $15,000 or $10 per e-mail. Bi-partisan support to reduce spam. At least the parties can agree on something." 30-40% of my mail is junkmail (most of which is caught and filtered). I'd like to know more details, but this could be great if done properly.

Last Saturday a comment was posted here by an anonymous reader that contained text that was copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. They have since followed the DMCA and demanded that we remove the comment. While Slashdot is an open forum and we encourage free discussion and sharing of ideas, our lawyers have advised us that, considering all the details of this case, the comment should come down. Read on to understand what this means.

This is the first time since we instituted our moderation system that a comment has had to be removed because of its content, and believe me nobody is more broken hearted about it than me. It's a bad precedent, and a blow for the freedom of speech that we all share in this forum. But this simply doesn't look like a case we can win. Our lawyers tell us that it appears to be a violation of Copyright law, and under the terms of the DMCA, we must remove it. Else we risk legal action that would at best be expensive, and potentially cause Slashdot to go down temporarily or even permanently. At the worst, court orders could jeporadize your privacy, and we would be helpless to stop it.

We need to choose our battles and this isn't one we want to have. We want Slashdot to be a forum where you can say what's in your heart, but we simply can't defend an anonymous poster who violates copyright law. Keep that in mind when you post in both this discussion, and in others in the future. Post your ideas. Post your thoughts. And most of all, post your links. We need to play by the rules or it's game over.

Now there is the matter of this specific comment. It contained a text called "OT III", part of what is known as the Fishman Affidavit. This text is Copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. In compliance with the DMCA, we are removing it from Slashdot. In its place we are putting non-copyrighted text: Links to websites about the church of Scientology, as well as links to how you can contact your congressman about the DMCA. Thanks a lot to Jamie for putting this together.

First of all, we would like to point out that the text of OT III is available at many other places on the web. To many to list here in fact. Instead, try a Google search on "OT III" and "Fishman", which as of this writing (March 2001) returns over 250 pages. A broader search on AltaVista returns over 2,000 webpages.

Operating in the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts, Karin Spaink's Fishman Affidavit webpage has fended off two lawsuits from Scientology, one in 1996 and one in 1999. The latter suit, according to the page, is still being appealed. >From the link listed just above, you can click through to the Fishman Affidavit, which contains links to not only to an annotated copy of OT III, but to the documents on the other OT levels as well, number one through the disputed number eight.

If you would like a plain English explanation of OT III, see OT III Rewritten For Beginners, by Jon Atack. Its author is a former Scientologist who himself completed level OT III. The webpage contains nothing copyrighted by a Scientology organization. It is an explanation of what OT III says and what that means, along with commentary by the author. Jon Atack is also the author of A Piece of Blue Sky, which is a history of Scientology from before its founding to after L. Ron Hubbard's death. At the above link, you can either purchase it, or read it in its entirety online.

If you are interested in Scientology, you will want to visit Operation Clambake, at xenu.net. It seems to be the most important central resource for information on the organization.

You may also want to visit the Lisa McPherson Memorial Page, which claims that "Lisa died needlessly at the hands of Scientology." Her case is truly a tragic one and she deserves to be remembered. The site has a great deal of information on her death. Related is The Lisa McPherson Trust, which has not only information about Lisa, but a very large archive of interviews, court transcripts, news reports, testimonials, and videos about Scientology.

Here's a Slashdot story last year on eBay removing auctions for e-meters based on the Church of Scientology DMCA copyright allegations, which is odd because Copyright law doesn't cover a physical device.

If there's anything else about Scientology you want to know, you will want to see AltReligionScientology.org, which contains a huge list of links to all the sites I don't have room to list here.

The DMCA is actually five separate modifications to copyright law. Its Title I is known for providing legal protection for "technological measures" (typically encryption) which prevent copying; this is the part that empowered the MPAA to sue over DeCSS, to name the best-known example.

That's not the part that concerns us here; Title II is its other major modification of copyright law and that's what we're dealing with. Title II created 17 U.S.C. Section 512, and we're specifically looking at our liability under paragraphs (c)(1)(A), which says we have to act "expeditiously to remove or disable access to the [infringing] material." Here's the U.S. Copyright Office's 18-page summary of the DMCA as a whole. If 18 pages is too long for you, here's the American Library Association's much quicker summary

Here's a list of resources on the DMCA, including the DMCA itself in PDF format. The EFF page on the DCMA seems to relate mostly to Title I, the anti-encryption-circumvention portion, but it's too good not to mention anyway.

Don't know who your Congressperson or Senators are? That's OK, now's as good a time as any to learn. Finding your Senators is easy, just go to Senate.gov. To find your Representative, you just need your zip code. You can use the form on the website to write them if you're lazy, but if you want your message to have more impact, print it out and send it in a real envelope. Anything's better than nothing, though.

When you write, you'll want to write something they'll read. Here are the ACLU's tips for writing to your Congressperson or Senators.

It's nice to have a bit of good news about the DMCA every so often. Who knows, maybe ten years from now we'll be right back where we were in 1997 -- and what a victory that will be! Anyway, Tech Law Journal has a transcript of Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.)'s savvy speech arguing that the DMCA has reached too far. Surprisingly clued for a lawmaker, he calls for "Congress to reaffirm the fair use doctrine" in a variety of areas: most notably, the contentious issue of buy-once-listen-anywhere for CDs. He also addresses backups, distance learning, resale, caching, and online sampling of your music before buying. He could have said more but I'm just glad he said anything.

slashdoter writes: "EFF has some info on a new bill before Congress. The Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000 says that you can use the internet to move music as long as you own the CD. You can read the story at the EFF website." The 360-word bill would have cut the my.mp3.com lawsuit off at the knees, so naturally mp3.com likes it; if it passes, mp3.com might even discover its missing backbone. So check to see whether your Congressperson is on the House Judiciary Committee; if so, since that's where the bill is, your opinion can have some real leverage. Send email!

slashdoter continues: "And on a side note, I just received my welcome letter from the EFF and was angered to find I was only member #11420. After 10 years that's all they have. Come on, as a student it only cost me $20(US). Words are nice but money speaks."

On another side note: civil-rights-wise, it's ironic that this bill's author also introduced H.R. 1081, a silly thing that died in committee. A hate-crime law with stiff penalties for flag-bashing.

slashdoter writes: "EFF has some info on a new bill before Congress. The Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000 says that you can use the internet to move music as long as you own the CD. You can read the story at the EFF website." The 360-word bill would have cut the my.mp3.com lawsuit off at the knees, so naturally mp3.com likes it; if it passes, mp3.com might even discover its missing backbone. So check to see whether your Congressperson is on the House Judiciary Committee; if so, since that's where the bill is, your opinion can have some real leverage. Send email!

slashdoter continues: "And on a side note, I just received my welcome letter from the EFF and was angered to find I was only member #11420. After 10 years that's all they have. Come on, as a student it only cost me $20(US). Words are nice but money speaks."

On another side note: civil-rights-wise, it's ironic that this bill's author also introduced H.R. 1081, a silly thing that died in committee. A hate-crime law with stiff penalties for flag-bashing.

richardbowers writes "The Library of Congress has posted the replies it received to comments collected about DMCA enforcement. Kudos go to several individuals who submitted comments, people who have also been strong contributors to the OpenLaw discussions on these topics. Big business is also represented. If you have missed the last fifteen Slashdot stories on the aim of big business to take away ownership and replace it with rental, you can see it again here. Since the reply period is now closed, you will need to take up your disgust with your Senator or Representatives, or just give something to the EFF to help them defray the costs of the inevitable and continuing lawsuits."

We keep getting submissions about bills in Congress to ban the distribution of any information on how to manufacture illegal drugs. The story of this is kind of humorous. The bill was having trouble on its own, so it's been grafted onto a bill called the "Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000" -- this bill goes on for 50 pages about modifications to bankruptcy laws (to make it harder for consumers to declare bankruptcy, naturally), then suddenly has a whole section on illegal drugs, then goes back to bankruptcy. It's the censorship law that won't die. Even more disturbing, a tiny little rider in the bill alters the general requirements for search warrants so that you need never be informed of a search -- notification can be delayed indefinitely, which is a fundamental violation of the Fourth Amendment. In any case, it's in real danger of passing, so it's something you ought to pay attention to. We've done some grafting ourselves of some of the submissions related to this ...

First, as always, you can read the bills yourself by going to Thomas. Key in "methamphetamine" or "bankruptcy." Here's a direct link to the Bankruptcy Reform Act, and there's a link to HR 2987 in a submission below. Places like DRCNet aren't too happy about the bill, but neither are civil liberties groups -- the EFF has a nice overview of the whole situation in their last newsletter as well.

Vince Beiser writes: "New story from MotherJones.com: Speed Limit: A bill banning Internet sites that publish or even link to drug-making information looks set to sail through Congress -- to the dismay of free-speech advocates. Read the story." Mother Jones has also recently published an update to this story. If you only read one link off this story, it should be this one.

wrenling writes: "Right now HR 2987 is before the House Judiciary Committee. The bill is marked as an anti-methamphetamine proliferation bill. Without getting into discussions of whether or not drugs should be legal, attention needs to be drawn to the rider that is attached to the bill which according to the ACLU would allow the following:

Free Speech is at Risk. H.R. 2987 would also allow the government to order Web sites censored and shut down without any due process of law and without any notice given to the website's owner. One provision of the bill would allow agencies like the FBI to make judgment calls on the intent of online statements regarding drug use -- a power usually reserved for the courts. Internet service providers would then be ordered by law enforcement to take down any of these statements within 48 hours -- without notifying the Web site owner -- or be considered in violation of the law.

It's not only things like DMCA we have to watch out for, but for little riders on other legislation that, if enacted, could be used to further grant the United States government censorship powers."

Eric the .5b writes "Do we geeks really care, and do we geeks really matter?

The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, described here and here, is still in committee in the House as we speak. A similar bill sailed through the Senate last year, and if this goes through, the two should be very easy to reconcile into a final version and get made into law.

• This bill,
• HR 2987, would:
• Allow police to search your home or business without so much as notifying you that you are under investigation or that such searches have taken place for as long as six months,
• Allow investigators to make copies of your documents and computer files without ever notifying you,
• And make it illegal to distribute information about how to make any controlled substance, to merely link to Web pages giving information on that or drug paraphenalia, or to even just describe how to find such information.

If we want to do something about this, we have an excellent opportunity. Both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary (members listed here) are working on this legislative abomination. If you see your House representative (if you don't know your representative, like most of us, use the look-up) on either of these lists, contact him or her. E-mail or snailmail them if you like, but faxes and phonecalls will probably make the best impression. Be polite and very nonthreatening, but make it clear that you vote, and that you don't like this bill. Be sure to mention the title and number (The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act and HR 2987). Even if you don't see your representative on the lists, it couldn't hurt to bug the chairpersons of the committees. Lastly, pass this info around to anyone you know who might care. The more displeasure the representatives hear, the less attractive doing anything but killing this bill will be."

We keep getting submissions about bills in Congress to ban the distribution of any information on how to manufacture illegal drugs. The story of this is kind of humorous. The bill was having trouble on its own, so it's been grafted onto a bill called the "Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000" -- this bill goes on for 50 pages about modifications to bankruptcy laws (to make it harder for consumers to declare bankruptcy, naturally), then suddenly has a whole section on illegal drugs, then goes back to bankruptcy. It's the censorship law that won't die. Even more disturbing, a tiny little rider in the bill alters the general requirements for search warrants so that you need never be informed of a search -- notification can be delayed indefinitely, which is a fundamental violation of the Fourth Amendment. In any case, it's in real danger of passing, so it's something you ought to pay attention to. We've done some grafting ourselves of some of the submissions related to this ...

First, as always, you can read the bills yourself by going to Thomas. Key in "methamphetamine" or "bankruptcy." Here's a direct link to the Bankruptcy Reform Act, and there's a link to HR 2987 in a submission below. Places like DRCNet aren't too happy about the bill, but neither are civil liberties groups -- the EFF has a nice overview of the whole situation in their last newsletter as well.

Vince Beiser writes: "New story from MotherJones.com: Speed Limit: A bill banning Internet sites that publish or even link to drug-making information looks set to sail through Congress -- to the dismay of free-speech advocates. Read the story." Mother Jones has also recently published an update to this story. If you only read one link off this story, it should be this one.

wrenling writes: "Right now HR 2987 is before the House Judiciary Committee. The bill is marked as an anti-methamphetamine proliferation bill. Without getting into discussions of whether or not drugs should be legal, attention needs to be drawn to the rider that is attached to the bill which according to the ACLU would allow the following:

Free Speech is at Risk. H.R. 2987 would also allow the government to order Web sites censored and shut down without any due process of law and without any notice given to the website's owner. One provision of the bill would allow agencies like the FBI to make judgment calls on the intent of online statements regarding drug use -- a power usually reserved for the courts. Internet service providers would then be ordered by law enforcement to take down any of these statements within 48 hours -- without notifying the Web site owner -- or be considered in violation of the law.

It's not only things like DMCA we have to watch out for, but for little riders on other legislation that, if enacted, could be used to further grant the United States government censorship powers."

Eric the .5b writes "Do we geeks really care, and do we geeks really matter?

The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, described here and here, is still in committee in the House as we speak. A similar bill sailed through the Senate last year, and if this goes through, the two should be very easy to reconcile into a final version and get made into law.

• This bill,
• HR 2987, would:
• Allow police to search your home or business without so much as notifying you that you are under investigation or that such searches have taken place for as long as six months,
• Allow investigators to make copies of your documents and computer files without ever notifying you,
• And make it illegal to distribute information about how to make any controlled substance, to merely link to Web pages giving information on that or drug paraphenalia, or to even just describe how to find such information.

If we want to do something about this, we have an excellent opportunity. Both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary (members listed here) are working on this legislative abomination. If you see your House representative (if you don't know your representative, like most of us, use the look-up) on either of these lists, contact him or her. E-mail or snailmail them if you like, but faxes and phonecalls will probably make the best impression. Be polite and very nonthreatening, but make it clear that you vote, and that you don't like this bill. Be sure to mention the title and number (The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act and HR 2987). Even if you don't see your representative on the lists, it couldn't hurt to bug the chairpersons of the committees. Lastly, pass this info around to anyone you know who might care. The more displeasure the representatives hear, the less attractive doing anything but killing this bill will be."

We keep getting submissions about bills in Congress to ban the distribution of any information on how to manufacture illegal drugs. The story of this is kind of humorous. The bill was having trouble on its own, so it's been grafted onto a bill called the "Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000" -- this bill goes on for 50 pages about modifications to bankruptcy laws (to make it harder for consumers to declare bankruptcy, naturally), then suddenly has a whole section on illegal drugs, then goes back to bankruptcy. It's the censorship law that won't die. Even more disturbing, a tiny little rider in the bill alters the general requirements for search warrants so that you need never be informed of a search -- notification can be delayed indefinitely, which is a fundamental violation of the Fourth Amendment. In any case, it's in real danger of passing, so it's something you ought to pay attention to. We've done some grafting ourselves of some of the submissions related to this ...

First, as always, you can read the bills yourself by going to Thomas. Key in "methamphetamine" or "bankruptcy." Here's a direct link to the Bankruptcy Reform Act, and there's a link to HR 2987 in a submission below. Places like DRCNet aren't too happy about the bill, but neither are civil liberties groups -- the EFF has a nice overview of the whole situation in their last newsletter as well.

Vince Beiser writes: "New story from MotherJones.com: Speed Limit: A bill banning Internet sites that publish or even link to drug-making information looks set to sail through Congress -- to the dismay of free-speech advocates. Read the story." Mother Jones has also recently published an update to this story. If you only read one link off this story, it should be this one.

wrenling writes: "Right now HR 2987 is before the House Judiciary Committee. The bill is marked as an anti-methamphetamine proliferation bill. Without getting into discussions of whether or not drugs should be legal, attention needs to be drawn to the rider that is attached to the bill which according to the ACLU would allow the following:

Free Speech is at Risk. H.R. 2987 would also allow the government to order Web sites censored and shut down without any due process of law and without any notice given to the website's owner. One provision of the bill would allow agencies like the FBI to make judgment calls on the intent of online statements regarding drug use -- a power usually reserved for the courts. Internet service providers would then be ordered by law enforcement to take down any of these statements within 48 hours -- without notifying the Web site owner -- or be considered in violation of the law.

It's not only things like DMCA we have to watch out for, but for little riders on other legislation that, if enacted, could be used to further grant the United States government censorship powers."

Eric the .5b writes "Do we geeks really care, and do we geeks really matter?

The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, described here and here, is still in committee in the House as we speak. A similar bill sailed through the Senate last year, and if this goes through, the two should be very easy to reconcile into a final version and get made into law.

• This bill,
• HR 2987, would:
• Allow police to search your home or business without so much as notifying you that you are under investigation or that such searches have taken place for as long as six months,
• Allow investigators to make copies of your documents and computer files without ever notifying you,
• And make it illegal to distribute information about how to make any controlled substance, to merely link to Web pages giving information on that or drug paraphenalia, or to even just describe how to find such information.

If we want to do something about this, we have an excellent opportunity. Both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary (members listed here) are working on this legislative abomination. If you see your House representative (if you don't know your representative, like most of us, use the look-up) on either of these lists, contact him or her. E-mail or snailmail them if you like, but faxes and phonecalls will probably make the best impression. Be polite and very nonthreatening, but make it clear that you vote, and that you don't like this bill. Be sure to mention the title and number (The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act and HR 2987). Even if you don't see your representative on the lists, it couldn't hurt to bug the chairpersons of the committees. Lastly, pass this info around to anyone you know who might care. The more displeasure the representatives hear, the less attractive doing anything but killing this bill will be."

We keep getting submissions about bills in Congress to ban the distribution of any information on how to manufacture illegal drugs. The story of this is kind of humorous. The bill was having trouble on its own, so it's been grafted onto a bill called the "Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000" -- this bill goes on for 50 pages about modifications to bankruptcy laws (to make it harder for consumers to declare bankruptcy, naturally), then suddenly has a whole section on illegal drugs, then goes back to bankruptcy. It's the censorship law that won't die. Even more disturbing, a tiny little rider in the bill alters the general requirements for search warrants so that you need never be informed of a search -- notification can be delayed indefinitely, which is a fundamental violation of the Fourth Amendment. In any case, it's in real danger of passing, so it's something you ought to pay attention to. We've done some grafting ourselves of some of the submissions related to this ...

First, as always, you can read the bills yourself by going to Thomas. Key in "methamphetamine" or "bankruptcy." Here's a direct link to the Bankruptcy Reform Act, and there's a link to HR 2987 in a submission below. Places like DRCNet aren't too happy about the bill, but neither are civil liberties groups -- the EFF has a nice overview of the whole situation in their last newsletter as well.

Vince Beiser writes: "New story from MotherJones.com: Speed Limit: A bill banning Internet sites that publish or even link to drug-making information looks set to sail through Congress -- to the dismay of free-speech advocates. Read the story." Mother Jones has also recently published an update to this story. If you only read one link off this story, it should be this one.

wrenling writes: "Right now HR 2987 is before the House Judiciary Committee. The bill is marked as an anti-methamphetamine proliferation bill. Without getting into discussions of whether or not drugs should be legal, attention needs to be drawn to the rider that is attached to the bill which according to the ACLU would allow the following:

Free Speech is at Risk. H.R. 2987 would also allow the government to order Web sites censored and shut down without any due process of law and without any notice given to the website's owner. One provision of the bill would allow agencies like the FBI to make judgment calls on the intent of online statements regarding drug use -- a power usually reserved for the courts. Internet service providers would then be ordered by law enforcement to take down any of these statements within 48 hours -- without notifying the Web site owner -- or be considered in violation of the law.

It's not only things like DMCA we have to watch out for, but for little riders on other legislation that, if enacted, could be used to further grant the United States government censorship powers."

Eric the .5b writes "Do we geeks really care, and do we geeks really matter?

The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, described here and here, is still in committee in the House as we speak. A similar bill sailed through the Senate last year, and if this goes through, the two should be very easy to reconcile into a final version and get made into law.

• This bill,
• HR 2987, would:
• Allow police to search your home or business without so much as notifying you that you are under investigation or that such searches have taken place for as long as six months,
• Allow investigators to make copies of your documents and computer files without ever notifying you,
• And make it illegal to distribute information about how to make any controlled substance, to merely link to Web pages giving information on that or drug paraphenalia, or to even just describe how to find such information.

If we want to do something about this, we have an excellent opportunity. Both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary (members listed here) are working on this legislative abomination. If you see your House representative (if you don't know your representative, like most of us, use the look-up) on either of these lists, contact him or her. E-mail or snailmail them if you like, but faxes and phonecalls will probably make the best impression. Be polite and very nonthreatening, but make it clear that you vote, and that you don't like this bill. Be sure to mention the title and number (The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act and HR 2987). Even if you don't see your representative on the lists, it couldn't hurt to bug the chairpersons of the committees. Lastly, pass this info around to anyone you know who might care. The more displeasure the representatives hear, the less attractive doing anything but killing this bill will be."

shankwound asks: "My company is going through a Pennsylvania State tax audit. The auditor claims that we owe sales/use tax on all of our Internet purchases. I thought that there was some kind of federal moratorium on Internet taxes. Apparently I was wrong. Our friendly auditor has worked up quite a bill with tax and penalties. Paying this bill off won't be fun. Although computer related services are exempt under PA law, online purchases of tangible personal property are not. On the federal level, U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox seems to be leading the battle against "new" Internet taxes, but that doesn't stop any already existing state sales/use taxes from being applied. The federal law has specific exemptions that don't cover existing taxes. I bet the general consensus is that you don't owe tax on Internet purchases of any kind. I'm wondering what Slashdot readers think about issue and if anyone has had a similar experience with their state auditors. Don't be caught off guard. Check your state's Internet tax rules before you're audited." For those of you running e-Commerce sites, now might be a good time to check those local tax laws.

shankwound asks: "My company is going through a Pennsylvania State tax audit. The auditor claims that we owe sales/use tax on all of our Internet purchases. I thought that there was some kind of federal moratorium on Internet taxes. Apparently I was wrong. Our friendly auditor has worked up quite a bill with tax and penalties. Paying this bill off won't be fun. Although computer related services are exempt under PA law, online purchases of tangible personal property are not. On the federal level, U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox seems to be leading the battle against "new" Internet taxes, but that doesn't stop any already existing state sales/use taxes from being applied. The federal law has specific exemptions that don't cover existing taxes. I bet the general consensus is that you don't owe tax on Internet purchases of any kind. I'm wondering what Slashdot readers think about issue and if anyone has had a similar experience with their state auditors. Don't be caught off guard. Check your state's Internet tax rules before you're audited." For those of you running e-Commerce sites, now might be a good time to check those local tax laws.

shankwound asks: "My company is going through a Pennsylvania State tax audit. The auditor claims that we owe sales/use tax on all of our Internet purchases. I thought that there was some kind of federal moratorium on Internet taxes. Apparently I was wrong. Our friendly auditor has worked up quite a bill with tax and penalties. Paying this bill off won't be fun. Although computer related services are exempt under PA law, online purchases of tangible personal property are not. On the federal level, U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox seems to be leading the battle against "new" Internet taxes, but that doesn't stop any already existing state sales/use taxes from being applied. The federal law has specific exemptions that don't cover existing taxes. I bet the general consensus is that you don't owe tax on Internet purchases of any kind. I'm wondering what Slashdot readers think about issue and if anyone has had a similar experience with their state auditors. Don't be caught off guard. Check your state's Internet tax rules before you're audited." For those of you running e-Commerce sites, now might be a good time to check those local tax laws.

shankwound asks: "My company is going through a Pennsylvania State tax audit. The auditor claims that we owe sales/use tax on all of our Internet purchases. I thought that there was some kind of federal moratorium on Internet taxes. Apparently I was wrong. Our friendly auditor has worked up quite a bill with tax and penalties. Paying this bill off won't be fun. Although computer related services are exempt under PA law, online purchases of tangible personal property are not. On the federal level, U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox seems to be leading the battle against "new" Internet taxes, but that doesn't stop any already existing state sales/use taxes from being applied. The federal law has specific exemptions that don't cover existing taxes. I bet the general consensus is that you don't owe tax on Internet purchases of any kind. I'm wondering what Slashdot readers think about issue and if anyone has had a similar experience with their state auditors. Don't be caught off guard. Check your state's Internet tax rules before you're audited." For those of you running e-Commerce sites, now might be a good time to check those local tax laws.

belgin writes: "According to this ZDNet article, the U.S. House Commerce Committee is considering a law that places a bounty on illegal spammers. These bounties would be paid to ISPs and individuals who track down and turn in spammers. Specific types of spam mentioned by the article include fraudulent spam and spam that attempts to falsify its origin. Fun to think about if you've landed on one too many spam lists, but a little scary in 'leads to ...' department." The bill, called H.R. 3113, or the Unsolicited Electronic Mail Act of 2000, would impose Federal law in the form of what seem to be common-sense restrictions on electronic junk. But belgin is right -- what consequences might laws like this have that we don't want to trade for, even in spam? Would private solutions be better in the long term?[updated 18th May 2000 13:45GMT by timothy] Not to be confused with last year's H.R. 3113.

Anonymous Coward passed along an interesting bill in the U.S. House which he says will be voted on tomorrow (Tuesday). The original H.R. 1291 limited the FCC's powers. This amendment adds language that could be interpreted to expand the FCC's jurisdiction to include voice-over-IP transmissions. This page, at least, evinces great fear over that possibility. But I don't think that's what it means. Read more...

What pulver.com says is that H.R. 1291 "caves in to the Bell Companies and opens the door for the FCC to regulate and impose access charges on IP voice services." But what does the bill really say?

The original bill prohibits the FCC from taxing service providers by the minute:

"...the Commission shall not impose on any interactive computer service ... or other information service provider any access charge for the support of universal service that is based on a measure of the time that telecommunications services are used in the provision of such interactive computer service or information service."

The amendment, which is what is being protested, changes "interactive computer service or other information service provider" to "Internet access service." But the change that's causing concern is the final paragraph which was added by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI):

"Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Commission from imposing access charges on the providers of Internet telephone services, irrespective of the type of customer premises equipment used in connection with such services."

OK, so it's saying that this bill will not prohibit the FCC from regulating voice over IP - but since when does it have that power to begin with?

Does the bill's language give the agency that power? Does it hint that maybe in future the feds will crack down on multiplayer games with voice messaging, or PGPvoice?

Or, is it just, as one slash coder commented, "like telling the FCC they are not prohibited from taxing waffle irons" -- a silly and unnecessary piece of CYA?

I don't think it's either. I spoke with Dave Farber at the FCC, and he indicates the agency is not interested in regulating the internet. It's historically been very hands-off and there's no reason to think that will change. This pending legislation seem to be just Congress's way of saying "we're not ruling anything out" -- it doesn't mean that such regulation is on the horizon. So there's no cause for panic.

Update: CNET's story is the paranoid version; ZDnet's is a little more reasonable.

This is not totally on-topic for YRO, but interesting enough that we'll run it anyway. 1010011010 writes "Read the "Not Easy Listening" passage in the "Notebook" section of the latest New Republic; it talks about the National Association of Broadcasters' efforts to kill the FCC low-power radio initiative:" (more)

"So, as part of its efforts to kill the FCC's low-power radio initiative, the NAB recently flooded Capitol Hill offices with copies of a compact disc that purportedly demonstrated the type of interference that would occur on listeners' radios if the low-power stations were to go on the air.

[...]

"To generate the annoying cross talk, the NAB simply took two previously recorded radio programs and mixed them together in a sound studio; the result was, according to the NAB, a "simulation" of what would happen if a low-power radio station were placed close to another station on the FM dial."

"... kind of like MSFT's faked video 'evidence' during its anti-trust trial. Except that, instead of a smart cookie like Jackson, the audience is the bunch of suckers the voters of this fine country sent to D.C. The NAB has a section on "Low-Power FM" at their website, including "examples of real-world interference" ... faked? I don't know. But the 'examples' they sent to Congress were. They have provided an 8MB mp3 file -- that notoriously high-fidelity format -- as 'proof'. It's packaged into a self-extracting .exe zip archive, for some stupid reason. Maybe someone could run a little fidelity test on it; find out the sampling rate, frequency cutoffs, etc. If there's music clips in it, perhaps compare them to the original source from CD? Call your congressmen and sentators! Let them know this is a sham! Tell them we'll force Christian Slater to star in "Pump Up the Volume 2" unless they back off and stop pushing the "Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act," a.k.a. the "Government Protection for NAB Weenies Act of 1999" -- that states right at the top: A BILL To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from establishing rules authorizing the operation of new, low power FM radio stations. "

Kathleen Ellis, editor of the Privacy News Portal, attended yesterday's press briefing about a proposed loosening of export restrictions, and wrote the following feature article about the current situation. Click below for more.

Actually, let me hit you with a few links before you get started:

• EPIC's page on the proposed Cyberspace Electronic Security Act
• Proposed text of the bill
• White House analysis of the bill - really an executive summary
• Wired coverage, by Declan McCullagh
• Update: Press statements, including briefing transcript

Encryption Exports: Small Step Forward, Big Step Back
by Kathleen Ellis
September 17, 1999

Prominent U.S. Government representatives yesterday announced at a White House press briefing that the President was proposing legislation on encryption policy, and that the Department of Commerce was revising its export restrictions on some encryption products. Last year, Vice President Al Gore vowed to further loosen restrictions and propose a solution to the encryption issue, which has been the subject of contentious debate for the past decade.

The legislation, known as the Cyberspace Electronic Security Act of 1999 (CESA), has been transmitted to Congress by President Clinton. The bill purports to strike a "compromise" between the needs of law enforcement for access to data and the needs of Internet users to secure and their e-mail, web transactions, and stored data from hackers or thieves. According to the text of the bill, "society's increasing reliance on information systems in this new environment exposes U.S. citizens, institutions, and their information to unprecedented risks." Despite this acknowledgement, the bill clearly gives consideration to the needs of law enforcement and intelligence agencies first; "The failure to provide law enforcement with the necessary ability to obtain the plaintext version of the evidence makes existing authorities useless."

One of the major provisions of CESA is to allocate $80 million dollars for an FBI "Technical Support Center", which would provide assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement officials. The bill also reinforces the confidentiality of law enforcement intelligence techniques used to gather information about suspected criminals. "The Department of Justice has developed this legislation with the assistance of agencies in government," said Attorney General Janet Reno. "Law enforcement has tools at its disposal to fight crime, but those tools are rendered useless when encryption gets involved". Reno said that CESA "balances the needs of privacy and public safety".

Perhaps most the most noteworthy provision of the bill is the resurrection of key escrow, a solution long considered insufficient, insecure and obsolete by experts. Key escrow is a technology that entails entrusting one's private keys with a trusted third party, so that theoretically, a law enforcement official would be able to present that third party with a warrant in order to gain access to the plaintext of the encrypted data. Although the bill does not require domestic users to utilize an escrowed cryptosystem, the bill provides a legal framework to protect users from disclosure of their decryption keys by their trusted third party without a court order. The bill also proposes to implement strict guidelines outlining the circumstances under which a law enforcement agent may be granted access to a decryption key held by the third party.

This mention of key escrow worries privacy activists, who have heard the use of such language by the administration before. "This raises the specter of collusion between law enforcement and industry to build back door access into encryption products," says David Sobel, General Counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. According to EPIC's statement, the bill will eventually "provide a legal framework for access to decryption keys," a prospect which worries many activists and internet users alike.

Sobel would rather see the Security and Freedom through Encryption Act determine the U.S. Government's encryption policy. Authored by congressman Bob Goodlatte, SAFE would essentially force the government to reverse its stance on the encryption issue. Unfortunately, passage of the SAFE Act now seems unlikely, in light of Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre's remark during the briefing that if the SAFE Act passes the House and Senate, "the Department of Defense will ask the President to veto it".

Also announced at the press conference were revisions to the Department of Commerce's encryption export policy. According to a report released at the briefing, the export requirements will be revised to allow software exports of products of any key length, after the product is first submitted for review by the Commerce Department, and as long as the manufacturer of the product meets strict guidelines for post-export reporting of any user or distributor who obtains the software directly from the licensee. Secretary of Commerce William Daley announced that that the Bureau of Export Administration would streamline the revision and reporting process, but was unclear about specific changes to the current procedure.

Two prominent industry groups are very enthusiastic about this proposal. "Today's decision articulates a policy that is good for America, good for our nation's high-tech industry, and good for the tens of millions of Americans who use computers and want them to be secure" says a press release from Americans for Computer Privacy, a group that has lobbied for legislative reform and is funded primarily by technology companies. In a statement published by the Computer Systems Policy Project, Sun Microsystems President and CEO Scott McNealy (who made headlines on Slashdot for his remarks telling reporters that the privacy issue was a "red herring" and that "you have zero privacy anyway...get over it") said "we applaud the Administration's recognition that the universal use of strong encryption will promote the benefits of a networked world while protecting Americans' privacy, safety and security,". CSPP is comprised of eleven CEOs from major Information Technology companies, such as IBM, Dell, and Intel.

James Steinberg, Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs, opened the briefing by praising both groups for thier assistance in authoring the proposal, so it's no surprise that they're eager to ingratiate themselves to the Clinton Administration, while at the same time self-importantly emphasizing their effectiveness by declaring a victory. EPIC's David Sobel says "it appears that the FBI and large computer companies have reached an agreement on encryption, but that is not necessarily in the interest of the average computer user." Any compromise reached by these two groups could result in "less security than advertised, with hidden vulnerabilities the government can exploit".

Secretary Daley was repeatedly asked during the briefing what purpose the one-time review served, and under what circumstances an export license exception would be granted or denied; no clear answer was given. The U.S. Government may wish to allow exports only of flawed or escrowed encryption products using encryption above a certain key length, but have given up on explicitly pursuing that as a goal. Large software companies, the kind represented by ACP and CSPP, have lost a lot of business because of the export restrictions, and with each year that passes they may become less likely to object to making a few changes to their crypto modules in order to finally gain access to the foreign market.

In some ways, this proposal is good for the companies who have existed for so long without the ability to export their stronger security products at all until now, but for the rest of us, the proposal is neutral at best and abysmal at worst. As larger, wealthier proponents of crypto liberalization get what they want and contentedly back out of the debate on this issue (as American banks did when they were granted license exception to export security software to their overseas offices), further positive alterations to export policy start to seem less and less likely to happen. This is bad for American cryptographers who wish to discuss their work with their colleagues on the Internet. It's even worse for users, who may end up using insecure products without knowing it.

It's unclear what will happen at this point. The current congressional climate suggests that CESA will not pass without a significant push from the Clinton Administration. Even if the bill is defeated, however, Internet users around the world should continue to be cautious about purchasing commercial encryption products that originate inside the U.S.; you never know what may be lurking within.

Michael Lach writes "The U. S. House of Representatives recently lauched a web site documenting recent hearings and noise about K12 science, math and tech education. Interesting comments from all sorts of big-wigs. There's a place for comments--it looks like they might actually do something on this issue at last. "

Michael Lach writes "The U. S. House of Representatives recently lauched a web site documenting recent hearings and noise about K12 science, math and tech education. Interesting comments from all sorts of big-wigs. There's a place for comments--it looks like they might actually do something on this issue at last. "

jht writes "Taking the Clinton Administration's electronic paranoia to new heights, this NY Times article details plans to have the FBI establish an infrastructure (called FIDNET) capable of monitoring all non-military public networks. And you were wondering why they're so down on encryption... The NSA is reviewing it now, with final rules expected in September. " Uh,oh. This is potentially a Very Bad Thing. You may want to e-mail your Congressional Representative about it. (Free NYT online subscription required to read the article.)

JoeyLemur writes "Surprised no one picked this up (then again, I'm probably the only one who browses Congressional records...) -- Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia introduced H.R. 1686 to the House of Representatives on May 5th. The full scoop can be read here. -- This bill, amongst other items, removes the FCC from regulating the Internet, preventing the forcing of broadband customers from buying Internet access from the broadband provider, and making it a Federal crime to "knowingly use another person's Internet e-mail address, or "domain name," to send unsolicited mass e-mails." -- Sounds good, if you ask me. Write your congressperson to support this. " (Insert "I Am Not A Lawyer Clause" here). Anyone good at reading legal documents want to take a stab at this? Is it as good as it looks?

JoeyLemur writes "Surprised no one picked this up (then again, I'm probably the only one who browses Congressional records...) -- Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia introduced H.R. 1686 to the House of Representatives on May 5th. The full scoop can be read here. -- This bill, amongst other items, removes the FCC from regulating the Internet, preventing the forcing of broadband customers from buying Internet access from the broadband provider, and making it a Federal crime to "knowingly use another person's Internet e-mail address, or "domain name," to send unsolicited mass e-mails." -- Sounds good, if you ask me. Write your congressperson to support this. " (Insert "I Am Not A Lawyer Clause" here). Anyone good at reading legal documents want to take a stab at this? Is it as good as it looks?

Jeffrey Baker writes "HR 3888 has passed out of subcommittee and will be taken up by the full House Commerce Committee. This is the bill that includes the horrible "opt-out" legislation which would require the citizen to notify spammers that they don't want mail from them. Slashdot readers who don't like spam should write a letter to their representative on the House Commerce Committee "