Slashdot Mirror

Authorizes nationwide service of subpoenas for electronic subscriber information

What does this one mean, and why does it sound like it could apply to more than just terrorism?

Defines terrorist activities

What is that definition, exactly? (I looked here, but that doesn't seem to be it.)

Looks like it's got a 4 year limit at least...

This looks like the right text...

Or, for the link wary... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./tem p/~c107bhnj7n:e89010:

SEC. 224. SUNSET.

(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.

(b) EXCEPTION- With respect to any particular foreign intelligence investigation that began before the date on which the provisions referred to in subsection (a) cease to have effect, or with respect to any particular offense or potential offense that began or occurred before the date on which such provisions cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue in effect.

• Authority to share criminal investigative information
• Employment of translators by the FBI
• Something about number of judges from somewhere being increased from 7 to 11 (no shit, read it yourself)
• what information can be reported about a suspect (I think, it's not clear)
• what agencies that information can be reported to
• THE DELAY OF WARRANT NOTIFICATION in the event it would cause 'adverse results'
• lots of stuff about wiretapping (section 216)
• single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism
• sanctions against the taliban (in particular! not just afghanistan in general) and Syria
• the assurance of compensation for compliance with federal officials

It's impossible to read that shit that is linked.... Commentary would be very appreciated.

Patriot ACT, USA ACT, ATA:

I know everyone has read and knows something about these bills, but here is a break down of what they mean in terms of things like computer crime and vandalism...

(a) Our Constitution gaurantees "due process" to all PERSONS, not all CITIZENS, meaning that immigrants may also enjoy these rights. However, under these acts, immigrants can be held on suspiscion of potential crime (ridiculous!). The Senate Bill allows for indefinite jail time without due process...

(b) These new laws broaden the definition of Terrorism to include things that include vandilism, computer crime, and (un)civil disobedience. There already exist laws that broadly define terrorism, and flying planes into buildings filled with thousands of innocent people meets those requirements. Marching in a demonstration is not terrorism, throwing a brick through a starbucks window is vandalism and property damage not terrorism, and hacking a website is not terrorism, (it is vandalism!). Also, under terrorism laws, people who harbor terrorists, or give terrorists advice can also be tried as terrorists! If you stay on my couch and then throw a brick at starbucks the next day, I am a terrorist. If I post a security weakness in Microsoft web servers on my website to warn people, and some kid uses the info to hack into someone's site, I am a terrorist!

(c) The laws give the FBI new powers to wiretap and read emails without a warrant. They can also read e-mails and URLS. If I want to read news about Bombs and Terrorists on google, and I type in "Bombs" and "Terrorists" into the field, that is all the FBI needs to suspect me of crime and set up a phone tap or a Carnivore search on me. The FBI is supposed to only be able to know where an email comes from and where it is going. They are supposed to only read the "To:" and "From:" fields of the e-mails, but how can you look at the header of an e-mail and not happen to glance at the "Subject:" line? Basically, that is what is happening in these laws and with Carnivore. ISP's have to install it on their servers. It is like a black box, no one can monitor what the FBI is doing or reading!

THESE LAWS ARE UNECESSARY FOR COMBATING TERRORISM! CURRENT LAWS ARE SUFFICIENT! WHY IS THE FBI, CIA, AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DOING THIS?

Resources:

• The entire Senate bill (the USA act) is here somewhere...
• The ACLU has an online chart that compares the three bills with current law.
• The EFF has great resources about these laws.
  
• EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) also has good info...

(2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -

(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the
United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not
exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial
institution or the United States Government and the conduct
constituting the offense affects that use by or for the
financial institution or the Government; or

(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or
communication;

Sec. 3286. Terrorism offenses
(a) An indictment may be found or an information instituted at any time without limitation for any Federal terrorism offense or any of the following offenses:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) Section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) of title 49.
(b) An indictment may be found or an information instituted within 15 years after the offense was committed for any of the following offenses:
(1) Section 175b ... or 1030(a)(7) (relating to protection of computers), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems)


You can read all the stuff here.

When you have such agreement in any comittee, including Congress, it means one of two things.

1. The bill is obviously a Good Thing (TM)
   
2. The comittee has fallen into groupthink.
   

Now that the government has a clearly defined enemy, we as a nation and a government are vulnerable to groupthink. This is when everybody agrees on something because they are afraid not to. In the Cold War, the term "Communist" was used to invoke groupthink and gave us McCarthyism and the Bay of Pigs. In the 90s, it has been "for the children". Today, it's "terrorism".

I've tried to examine the bill (S.1510, and it looks like line noise. I have to go to the press reactions, simply because IANAL. How many senators actually read this stuff?

It basically sections things off into those that have passed, those on the floor, and those hanging around without any action. It also has the text of each bill, who sponsored, and any amendments made to it.

Unfortunately, it's not real-time, so the latest version of the Senate bill isn't up there (I couldn't find it), but for those who really want to get to the meat of what's going on, it's all here.

It basically sections things off into those that have passed, those on the floor, and those hanging around without any action. It also has the text of each bill, who sponsored, and any amendments made to it.

Unfortunately, it's not real-time, so the latest version of the Senate bill isn't up there (I couldn't find it), but for those who really want to get to the meat of what's going on, it's all here.

Registering or claiming copyright protection and actually winning an infringement claim are two very different things.

Copyright (at least in the United States) only applies to ``original works of authorship,'' not ``[w]orks consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship.''

Perhaps the authors could receive protection for the entire compilation, but not for the telephone numbers taken individually.

Many Slashdot readers would do well to read the U.S. Copyright Office's Circular 1, Copyright Basics, from which the above quotations were taken.

As I was reading, realised that the quote was sightly wrong. The correct version is "What hath God wrought", same words, capitalized correctly. He quoted from the Bible, (book of) Numbers 23:23, per the Library of Congress.

Stuff like the Federalist Papers, personal papers, diaries, etc.

In short, there are two opposing points of view. One is, that inventors and authors should be encouraged to create inventions and writings by allowing them to profit from the fruits of their labor. The opposing point of view is that forcing inventions and writings into the public domain benefits the entire country. The solution was a compromise, allow inventors and authors to profit from efforts, but only for a limited period of time.

Having just fought a war against a powerful government, the framers tried very hard to limit the size and power of the Federal Government, but that was over 200 years ago./p

This means that the "unalienable rights" mentioned in the DoI are protected by the Bill of Rights.

Metalhead, and many other people, miss the basic point of the Bill of Rights: it's not a list of what the People are allowed to do, it's a list of things the Government is prohibited from doing. The Constitution does not give us any rights, because we already have them. What it does do is explicitly limit the Government's power to infringe several of those those rights. This is why the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law ..." and not "Congress shall grant the People ..."

No, you're absolutely correct. Apparently Peter and timothy were too happy to actually read the article...

A directive regulating the distance selling of all other goods and services was adopted in 1997 and entered into force last year. Financial services were excluded from its scope since these were considered to require a separate set of rules. A law on unsolicited e-mail covering all other industries is expected early next year. The question of whether to apply opt-in or opt-out to e-mail marketing is provoking hot debate; the Commission favors opt-in, but many members of the European Parliament prefer the more industry-friendly opt-out approach.

So not only is the universal anti-email spam laws not on the table yet, but also neither of the laws have even been fully proposed yet, muchless passed. It's not a universal thing, and it has not even been drafted fully yet, nevermind passed.

As stated, industries much much much prefer the "opt-out" method, and thus since we know how much power the industry has over the laws, it's highly unlikely that they will be passed.

The only reason why the financial sector got this put into the bill is because the regulations for distance selling of their products were not decided in 1997 with the rest of the sectors because it was felt that finance required a different set of rules (why?) and since email marketing wasn't a problem 4 years ago, it wasn't an issue that needed addressing. It'll be interesting to see if it gets passed or just gets squashed or "removed at the last minute due to someone who was supposed to retype it" (a-la the "The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999" in the states).

... is of course the S l a s h d o t E f f e c t.

Sooo... congresscritters are thinking of passing a nasty ole law? Rob could just threaten to post a story like "An anonymous coward writes: Streaming video of Natalie Portmans hot grit's posted to the US Congress Web site. "([sic] - TacoLexicon in force. my real grammar is better.)

Congress would naturally cave in and meet all our demands. Well, maybe not RMS's...

You have to remember, the USSR went in there to "pacify" what they considered their territory.
The US has no such intentions or illusions.

Consise Backgrounder Linkage:

Pakistan 1
Pakistan 2

Afghan 1
Afghan 2

Here's where you can write your representative (House): http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Here's some tips on contacting your congresspeople: (both house and senate) http://nch.ari.net/advocate.html
From congress.gov's faq : http://thomas.loc.gov/tfaqs/02.htm (How can I communicate with a Member of Congress )

I would suggest sending more than just an email. One member of congress already said he would only respond to snail mail because of all the ?spam? he was recieving (can't find the particulars of that one though...)

I'm sure that a few other people can find plenty of coherent well thought out reasons why this won't work and is generally a bad a thing...

Me too! Only not on my home PC - at work. We're a copyright library (like the Library of Congress) and digitization is the big thing. MPEG2 is just too big (we're reaching 31TB of storage this year, and expect to go to over 100TB within the next 2 years) - a Free (as in speech - we can't use MP3 for audio, for example - you *don't* archive stuff in encumbered standards) MPEG4 solution with hardware accelerated encoding is one of our Holy Grails. Given this, we could be streaming hundreds of hours of (Free) content to our reading rooms, and eventually to the world (once the bandwidth will allow). Working at a copyright library really shows the damage that closed systems and braindead copyright laws can do to free exchange of information.

...this in the amendment. Look under TitleVIII, terrorism.
Relevant clipped text:
"(a) IN GENERAL.--(1) Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1) of this title, the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The order shall, upon service of the order, apply to any entity providing wire or electronic communication service in the United States whose assistance is required by effectuate the order." My emphasis added.
This can be applied to much more than the 'net. I am glad to live in Utah, so I can NOT vote for the Honorable Sen. Hatch next election.

Gregg's speech (scroll down almost half-way, or search for Gregg)

If you feel strongly about this, do send hand-written, original mail to him. It still makes a difference even if you aren't from New Hampshire. His web site:

http://gregg.senate.gov/

> Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans

Presumably he's talking about the Marshall Plan. According to the Marshall Foundation figures, the greatest beneficiary by far were the UK, contrary to what this guy claims. This does not take into consideration the Lend Lease program, which funnelled many more material resources into the UK, much of which never made its way back to the US. Many economists and historians will tell you that is was more Germany's economic recovery than anything else that drove European recovery during the decades after the war. Of course, admitting that loudly and publicly would create somewhat of a moral dilemma, since Germany's image as the eternal bad guy would be tarnished.

> None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its Remaining debts to the United States.

Again, not entirely true. At least Germany had fully repaid its debts during the '50s. For an interesting assessment of the Marshall Plan, read this article. Also, lest you think the Marshall Plan was a purely altruistic gesture, check this tidbit over at the Library Of Congress.

> Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed
> Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? [...]
> Why do all the International lines Except Russia fly American Planes?

?? Ok, this is obvious trolling, but what the heck. I guess he hasn't heard of Airbus, which has recently had higher sales than Boeing. He might also want to check with some British and French aircraft manufacturers and see how they felt about being essentially strong-armed out of the market by the US during the decades following the war.

And regarding Boeing's constant whining about the EU's cash subsidies to Airbus, they might want to pause and consider where they'd be without the mega-juicy military contracts of WWII. For well over a decade after the war, Boeing civilian aircraft were mere permutations of their warplane parts bins.

> You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy,
> and you find men on the moon

Uh, he might want to visit the Marshall Space Center in Huntsville, AL, and read some of the last names on the exhibits. Trivial details, I know.

> When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down Through age, it was the
> Americans who rebuilt them.

Must have been some wet dream he had, no other explanation.

> I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of Other people in trouble. Can
> you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble?

Well, that might have something to do with the metaphorical smirk on the US' face if offered "help": "Thanks, but you better keep it. You might need it more than us."

These are mere corrections of this guy's "facts" and in no way meant to denigrate the USA's contributions to the world. There is no denying that the world would be a lesser place without their democratic strength and stability over the last century.

Choose your war. No clear good guys. Just people that are both trying to save themselves and save their causes.

Go here

After reading about the War of Attrition, then the War of 67, read the Yom Kippur War. While nobody is clearly in the right, I must say that a sneak attack on the holiest day of your enemy is a lame attack plan.

For some additional information, the following is the Library of Congress catalog number (according to the Library of Congress web site):

E312.17 .A37 1942

refer to http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html

"A statesman, actor, musician, or inventor who asks for and desires public recognition in a large sense surrenders his right of privacy to the public...On the other hand, the privilege of using the picture of a famous person as a subject of new or current interest or for informative purposes does not extend to the commercialization of his personality through forms of treatment distinct from dissemination of news or information." Photography and the Law by George Chernoff and Hershel Sarbin (NY: AMPHOTO, 1971), pp. 36-37. [call number: KF2042.P45C44 1971 P&P]

DMCA Section 512(d) explicitly exempts "information location tools", such as search engines, from liability for linking, indexing, referencing, etc., copyrighted material. Furthermore Section 512(b) exempts most forms of temporary caching (though not if you modify the material which might be important here).

If you wondered why DMCA wasn't mentioned explicitly in the article, this is probably why. DMCA is relatively nice to search engines, but the issues here go beyond that. We are concerned with whether images are different from text and what is a fair use. The article does a good job of outlining the issues.

For more on DMCA you might try this summary.
And for the really adventurous there is always the full text.
Note: Both links are PDF files.

DMCA Section 512(d) explicitly exempts "information location tools", such as search engines, from liability for linking, indexing, referencing, etc., copyrighted material. Furthermore Section 512(b) exempts most forms of temporary caching (though not if you modify the material which might be important here).

If you wondered why DMCA wasn't mentioned explicitly in the article, this is probably why. DMCA is relatively nice to search engines, but the issues here go beyond that. We are concerned with whether images are different from text and what is a fair use. The article does a good job of outlining the issues.

For more on DMCA you might try this summary.
And for the really adventurous there is always the full text.
Note: Both links are PDF files.

Before I get started, let's try an exercise in copyright law. Before continuing any farther, you agree that by reading the remainder of my post here (as copyright holder), you will not reply anonymously. As copyright holder of the viewpoint expressed below, I reserve the right to have a valid e-mail address for anyone disputing, supporting, or making any other comment to the content below.
Any anonymous reply invokes my right to pursue investigation into the identity of any Anonymous Coward, through the correlation of web and ISP logging facilities.

By the by, this is a big 'Eat me' to Anonymous Cowards. I think you're ticks on the underbelly of Free Speech. While you're foaming at the mouth and cursing my name, you can at least take heart that I'd defend your right to speak anonymously. I just think it sucks that people can't stand by their rhetoric.

From the RIAA faq about the DMCA: Q. Isn't it true that there shouldn't even be a webcasting performance right for sound recordings because it was intentionally left out of the DPRA and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") was passed without any debate from Congress?

While the topic discussion isn't webcasting, note the bold letters. The DMCA passed unanimously in the Senate.

I realize some readers here aren't American. To you, I say DON'T LET YOUR LEGISLATURES PASS THIS CRAP. Personally, I think it's fully high time for some accountability initiatives. Skylarov was arrested because this bill was signed into law without floor debate and support. Where were our Congressmen to defend our rights? Who will question the responsibility of our lawmakers if the constitutional basis of the DMCA is found to be infringing?

I encourage you to take the time to read the RIAA DMCA Webcasting faq, and understand why the DMCA is so important to record companies. It's plainly visible in the FAQ: They want control of what you listen to.

Some examples: (this text is from the RIAA webcasting faq)
The webcasting statutory license applies to webcasters that:
(1) offer non-interactive programming (i.e., not on-demand or personalized programming);
(2) primarily offer audio or other entertainment programming as opposed to primarily selling or promoting particular products or services; and (3) abide by certain conditions spelled out in the statute.

Some of those conditions: 2. Sound recording performance complement. A webcaster may not play in any three-hour period (1) more than three songs from a particular album, including no more than two consecutively, or (2) four songs by a particular artist or from a boxed set, including no more than three consecutively. This limit is called the "sound recording performance complement."

The cynic in me reads this and ponders some daily tallies of the crap overplayed on local stations.

Here's an interesting twist, though: Q. Terrestrial radio stations don't pay sound recording copyright owners. Why should webcasters be treated any differently?
A. The lack of a broad sound recording performance right that applies to US terrestrial broadcasts is an historical accident. In almost every other country broadcasters pay for their use of the sound recordings upon which their business is based. For decades, the US recording industry fought unsuccessfully to change this anomaly while broadcasters built very profitable businesses on the creative works of artists and record companies. The broadcasters were simply too strong on Capitol Hill.

Wow. They pull off one of the worst bills in American history, and have the nerve to grouse about this? The RIAA isn't interested in what you want. They're interested in controlling how you are spoon fed media. The DMCA is designed to take away your basic right to a choice.

Consider the coolest feature of the VCR. Fast forward. When working under the Fair Use clause and taping Seinfeld, you could skip the commercials in the taped episode where Kramer thinks he's a dog. You could rent 'Honey, I shrunk my diapragm' at Blockbuster and fast forward through the previews for other movies. Sadly, friends, personal control over bought and paid for technology is a thing of the past. It's senile and dying a tottering death, with the RIAA and MPAA hanging around like ungrateful sons and daughters waiting to reap the inheritence.

I own a few DVDs I can't fast forward through the stack of promo crap at the beginning. The freedom once given to us by the remote control (that being that one where you can have full control over your home entertainment system without ever having to leave your couch) has been usurped by DVD region codes and encoded controller restrictions. The worst part? I may own the equipment, and I may have paid for that shiny disc, but it's a felony for me to learn how and implement a way to skip crap I didn't want in the first place.

So, what's next? If watermarking and content control become realities, how long until we see something as ludicrous, but possible, as not being able to skip audio tracks because you only want to hear the one song on a CD you bought because the band is a one hit wonder? How much time will be lost to having to sit through a segment of media we're not interested in seeing because we live in the US and aren't allowed to skip the spoonfeeding?

Big Media isn't interested in what you want. They're interested in what you'll buy lacking other options. And your congressmen are they're (perhaps willing) accomplices.

Demand accountability.

[IANAL]

I keep seeing this argument that if the TPM is easily broken, then it's not effective, so the DMCA doesn't apply. I'm sorry, but as much as I would wish that to be true, it doesn't appear to be. In 1201(a)(3)(b), the DMCA clearly defines its meaning:

a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

In other words, the question is not whether the TPM provides adequate protection against unauthorized access, but whether it has the effect of controlling access when it is used as intended by the copyright owner. Circumventing the TPM is not the "ordinary course of operation", so it doesn't matter how easy it is to crack the encryption.

Sorry, but this looks horribly well written. It gives the copyright owner the unquestioned right to put in place any mechanism that controls access in any way to the intellectual property, whether or not that control is granted by copyright law. That's the worst part of this law. It allows the copyright owner to extend the arenas of access control in any way they wish (region codes, forced ads, licensed hardware, etc.), and makes it a federal offense to go against the wishes of the copyright owner.

<rant>Every time I read this, it nauseates me to think that laws like this can be passed unanimously in this supposedly "free" country.</rant>

Before people go ranting and raving about the DMCA, take some time to poke around these sites:

Full text of the DMCA (see section 1201)

Legislative history of the DMCA

Prof. Touretzky's page (lots of great resources here)

General DMCA/DeCSS paper

I'm sure that there's a bunch of other places where you can go grab some knowledge...if you have any good links, post them below, because I'd be interested in reading more...

A few days ago my girlfriend showed me an on-line exhibition of photographs made from 1905 to 1915 by Prokudin-Gorskii at the Library of Congress. What is interesting is that these photos not only beautyful, but in color. As you may recall, color photography didn't emerge for some time later. This individual would take three pictures of his target, one with a red filter, one with a green filter, and one with a blue filter. Then he would show these pictures via a home-grown slide show projector made from stacking three projectors on top of each other and focusing them on the same location on the wall. There is a really nice description as to how they made color composite images (now available as JPG and TIFF). Very pretty pictures. Even more amazing when you consider the time period they were made in. If you look closely, some of the images are slightly blurred, for instance in this picture the target's left foot must have moved slightly between the three pictures. Enjoy!

A few days ago my girlfriend showed me an on-line exhibition of photographs made from 1905 to 1915 by Prokudin-Gorskii at the Library of Congress. What is interesting is that these photos not only beautyful, but in color. As you may recall, color photography didn't emerge for some time later. This individual would take three pictures of his target, one with a red filter, one with a green filter, and one with a blue filter. Then he would show these pictures via a home-grown slide show projector made from stacking three projectors on top of each other and focusing them on the same location on the wall. There is a really nice description as to how they made color composite images (now available as JPG and TIFF). Very pretty pictures. Even more amazing when you consider the time period they were made in. If you look closely, some of the images are slightly blurred, for instance in this picture the target's left foot must have moved slightly between the three pictures. Enjoy!

A few days ago my girlfriend showed me an on-line exhibition of photographs made from 1905 to 1915 by Prokudin-Gorskii at the Library of Congress. What is interesting is that these photos not only beautyful, but in color. As you may recall, color photography didn't emerge for some time later. This individual would take three pictures of his target, one with a red filter, one with a green filter, and one with a blue filter. Then he would show these pictures via a home-grown slide show projector made from stacking three projectors on top of each other and focusing them on the same location on the wall. There is a really nice description as to how they made color composite images (now available as JPG and TIFF). Very pretty pictures. Even more amazing when you consider the time period they were made in. If you look closely, some of the images are slightly blurred, for instance in this picture the target's left foot must have moved slightly between the three pictures. Enjoy!

Well, if you read the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explains what the militia is.

The Fathers did not intend for us to have standing armies in times of peace -- it's one of the reasons we rebelled against the king of England -- and all men of fighting age would be expected to muster and drill according to the rules of their state, not of the Federal government.

In a very real sense, all men of fighting age should be required to own an automatic assault rifle, and be expected to drill and practice with it. The ACLU is wrong, the Supreme Court is wrong. One has taken your freedom away, and the other is complicit in that action.

Remind me why I should support the ACLU again?

I think even many of their detractors would admit that the ACLU has no problem defending unpopular viewpoints, i.e. flag burning or the anti-death penalty movement.

If they were intellectually consistant, they would support concealed-carry laws and such as well -- equally "unpopular" and equally a "civil liberty". Instead, they support things that get them on TV and agree with their agenda. The ACLU is a Hollywood leftist organization, period.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This has been read to say that the government can neither endorse nor prohibit religion. This has been read to say (reasonably, iun my estimation), that the government can't get involved in religious matters.

It is a longstanding tradition to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. This is what makes it great; it is a living document that is adaptable to our modern society. It was not written and then abandoned.

Yes, any work you create is automatically copywrited unless you specifically put it in the public domain.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html has more details.

IANAL, but i do play one on /.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I wonder if they'll eventually push through a Canadian-style tax on anything that can carry data.

Ever heard of the DAT Tax? In 1992, the US Congress passed a law taxing media for use in digital recorders.

The Audio Home Recording act of 1992 mandated that consumers pay a royalty on each tape sold for DAT drives.

This contributed to the death of a market for the promising technology. And assumed that everyone who owns such technology would use it for theft. I have not made any illegal copies of music or software using the CD recorder that I own. This sort of levy assumes that I will, and I don't care for that.

I remember waiting for DAT technology to catch on for music - and waiting, and waiting, and waiting.....

DMCA

In college, I was doing research on the fall of Democracy in Chile. What fascinated me about the subject was how Chile, which had been a democracy for about a century, had become a military dictatorship. More importantly, I wondered if such a thing could ever happen here.

It turns out that there is an entire series of volumes titled The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes. There are volumes dedicated to Europe (e.g., Nazism in Germany), Latin America, a couple of more general texts, and a single volume dedicated just for Chile. And the entire scope of this series was summarized best by Julius Caesar over two thousand years ago:

All bad precedents began as justifiable measures.

Or, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." Or the great Benjamin Franklin quote above: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for security deserve neither." They get neither, as well.

We can't trust a government to do anything right. Why do we? Would you trust a bunch of complete power-greedy strangers to feed and clothe your children? Government has to be kept on a very short leash. If you do not set up and defend strict limits on the power officials can have and how long they can have that power, government will get too big for its britches. And if you give them more power than they deserve for more "security," you will find yourself walking down the streets, accosted by policemen. Or arrested without habeas corpus -- or bail.

This is clearly an interstate law enforcement issue, which is solely the role of the federal government.

Um.. no, it isn't. The "federal" goverment regulates interstate commerce, patents, and a very few other things. (Though they have this rather nasty tendency to shove a number of things under "interstate commerce", or to tax the states to force them to do their bidding.)

Let's read the eleventh amendment to The Constitution of the United States.

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Also, let's read the second clause of the second section of the fourth article of The Constitution of the United States.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

Note that he must flee from justice, and be found in another state. I would therefore construe, that if found in another state without fleeing, the jurisdiction did not extend.

Well, IANAL, but I'd say that the law cannot possibly do anything at all to him.

suppose I pollute the Colorado River in Nevada or Arizona within levels granted by a state permit.

A caveat, but one of supreme importance. The states do not permit anything. They just happen to be able to make it illegal. The Declaration of Independence, and the ninth and tenth ammendments make this abundantly clear.

This is clearly an interstate law enforcement issue, which is solely the role of the federal government.

Um.. no, it isn't. The "federal" goverment regulates interstate commerce, patents, and a very few other things. (Though they have this rather nasty tendency to shove a number of things under "interstate commerce", or to tax the states to force them to do their bidding.)

Let's read the eleventh amendment to The Constitution of the United States.

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Also, let's read the second clause of the second section of the fourth article of The Constitution of the United States.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

Note that he must flee from justice, and be found in another state. I would therefore construe, that if found in another state without fleeing, the jurisdiction did not extend.

Well, IANAL, but I'd say that the law cannot possibly do anything at all to him.

suppose I pollute the Colorado River in Nevada or Arizona within levels granted by a state permit.

A caveat, but one of supreme importance. The states do not permit anything. They just happen to be able to make it illegal. The Declaration of Independence, and the ninth and tenth ammendments make this abundantly clear.

This is clearly an interstate law enforcement issue, which is solely the role of the federal government.

Um.. no, it isn't. The "federal" goverment regulates interstate commerce, patents, and a very few other things. (Though they have this rather nasty tendency to shove a number of things under "interstate commerce", or to tax the states to force them to do their bidding.)

Let's read the eleventh amendment to The Constitution of the United States.

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Also, let's read the second clause of the second section of the fourth article of The Constitution of the United States.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

Note that he must flee from justice, and be found in another state. I would therefore construe, that if found in another state without fleeing, the jurisdiction did not extend.

Well, IANAL, but I'd say that the law cannot possibly do anything at all to him.

suppose I pollute the Colorado River in Nevada or Arizona within levels granted by a state permit.

A caveat, but one of supreme importance. The states do not permit anything. They just happen to be able to make it illegal. The Declaration of Independence, and the ninth and tenth ammendments make this abundantly clear.

This is clearly an interstate law enforcement issue, which is solely the role of the federal government.

Um.. no, it isn't. The "federal" goverment regulates interstate commerce, patents, and a very few other things. (Though they have this rather nasty tendency to shove a number of things under "interstate commerce", or to tax the states to force them to do their bidding.)

Let's read the eleventh amendment to The Constitution of the United States.

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Also, let's read the second clause of the second section of the fourth article of The Constitution of the United States.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

Note that he must flee from justice, and be found in another state. I would therefore construe, that if found in another state without fleeing, the jurisdiction did not extend.

Well, IANAL, but I'd say that the law cannot possibly do anything at all to him.

suppose I pollute the Colorado River in Nevada or Arizona within levels granted by a state permit.

A caveat, but one of supreme importance. The states do not permit anything. They just happen to be able to make it illegal. The Declaration of Independence, and the ninth and tenth ammendments make this abundantly clear.

This is clearly an interstate law enforcement issue, which is solely the role of the federal government.

Um.. no, it isn't. The "federal" goverment regulates interstate commerce, patents, and a very few other things. (Though they have this rather nasty tendency to shove a number of things under "interstate commerce", or to tax the states to force them to do their bidding.)

Let's read the eleventh amendment to The Constitution of the United States.

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Also, let's read the second clause of the second section of the fourth article of The Constitution of the United States.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

Note that he must flee from justice, and be found in another state. I would therefore construe, that if found in another state without fleeing, the jurisdiction did not extend.

Well, IANAL, but I'd say that the law cannot possibly do anything at all to him.

suppose I pollute the Colorado River in Nevada or Arizona within levels granted by a state permit.

A caveat, but one of supreme importance. The states do not permit anything. They just happen to be able to make it illegal. The Declaration of Independence, and the ninth and tenth ammendments make this abundantly clear.

"...Remember, you don't buy anything anymore -- you license it..."
That is a totally illogical statement. You never did buy copywritten content. The only thing you ever bought was the media upon which it came.
Example: A CD of music. Your $15.00 bought you: 1) a LICENSE to listen to the music and 2) the media upon which it was recorded (plus any packaging or ancillary materials packaged / distributed with it)
The license didn't give you the right to do whatever you wanted with the content (notice active word is "with" not "to".) but you could do whatever you wanted with the media / ancillary materials (not including copywriten content on the aforementioned anciallary materials). If you wanted to burn a CD or book, that is within your rights, copying the content however, except for archival purposes, is (generally) prohibited.
People here tend to bandy about the words "fair use" but seem to not have a concept of what the fair use clause in U.S. Copyright law pertains to and just what it can be used for. It is not a license to copy material or any such thing. It is (once again generally) applicable to commentary and review. (for more information on Fair Use see Title 17, 107

Third paragraph: It's registered with the "United States Patent and Trademark Office." Since I'm pretty sure they didn't trademark it (trademarks are for words and logos), and copyright is handled by the Library of Congress, that leaves...

No, there's no agreement you enter when you buy a CD or DVD, unless you're buying CDs with shrinkwrap licenses, unlike the rest of us.

The thing that says you can't copy it is a little thing called copyright law. You may have heard of it.

(IANAL but I have read DMCA summary papers by the copyright office and have even read portions of the law itself).

As far as I can tell, it is still quite legal to make fair use backups of stuff you own. What the DMCA outlawed was manufacturing a product who's sole purpose was circumventing encryption and copy protection. Using my poor legal perception, it seems to me that it is still legal for end users to make the one copy, it just isn't legal to develop and sell software to do it for them.

I may be completely wrong here, but there are at least 6 specific exceptions to DMCA restrictions. Including the end customers fair use backup exception.

Here's what I found helpful:

http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pd f

And here is a quote from that paper:

Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision
prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.

This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use
doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.

The making or selling devices is Dmitry's problem. The actually act of doing the circumvention is still legal, I think. (IANAL)