Slashdot Mirror

They did. See here: 13(b) the suspect was sophisticated enough to use compromised computers to disguise their actual IP address. The MySpace IP obtained in 12(b) helped determine this. http://www.politechbot.com/doc...

Declan might claim trademark infringement?

http://www.pire.org/topiclist2.asp?cms=63

They don't stop everybody, they stop, say, every third car. And they use high-pressure sales techniques to try to get "biological samples". But they actually don't arrest people they find impaired; they try to arrange transportation for them. And they don't claim to actually collect or register DNA, just the presence of drugs. I don't think that makes it right, but let's at least be accurate about what they're doing.

More information and links to past examples of these "studies":

http://www.politechbot.com/2007/09/21/colorado-sheriff-creates/

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/HS810704/pages/ExecSummary.html

http://www.pire.org/topiclist2.asp?cms=63

They don't stop everybody, they stop, say, every third car. And they use high-pressure sales techniques to try to get "biological samples". But they actually don't arrest people they find impaired; they try to arrange transportation for them. I don't think that makes it right, but let's at least be accurate about what they're doing.

More information and links to past examples of these "studies":

http://www.politechbot.com/2007/09/21/colorado-sheriff-creates/

It is possible, but once someone brings pictures and recorded conversations out in a trial obtained that way, there would be a mass uproar:

You mean, like in United States v. John Tomero, as the grandparent referenced? I missed the uproar.

They are already doing unlawful arrests and detainment of American citizens. It's called the Patriot Act, and yes they have disappeared/arrested a number of American citizens over the years since.

http://www.politechbot.com/p-04221.html
http://www.rense.com/general61/feds.htm
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5049867/

The one I can't find now that was pretty well known, was the programmer who worked for...I think Oracle, and the FBI came in one day and arrested him and then no one knew where he was, and they wouldn't even say why he was arrested or anything. No lawyer, no phone call, no nothing, just poof and he was gone. Finally his senator or congressmen had to get involved.

Yep. The only secure hardware is harware not connected to a network. These guys learned that lesson: http://www.politechbot.com/docs/fbi.ardito.roving.bug.opinion.120106.txt

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:7AOx1mO30NoJ:www.erollisimarr.com/forum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D18794+stoppoliceware&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

It's a forum, where a member copy/pasted some of the old site's mission, and asked about them. There is probably more interesting stuff available on the web, regarding stoppoliceware, if anyone is interested. Or, google for any of these terms:

"The CBDTPA is a bill (S. 2048) proposed in Congress by Senators Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), along with Senators Daniel Inouye (D-HI), John Breaux (D-LA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). The acronym stands for "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act". Note that the CBDTPA was originally known as the "SSSCA" while in draft form."

Ahhhh - here's the bill:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/hollings.s2048.032102.html

Spreading malware, breaking into someones computer and blackmailing them are serious offenses.

Which is why the members of the MAFIAA lobbied Congress a few years back to pass a law to decriminalize computer intrusion for purposes of copyright enforcement. Remember the Berman bill?

Just making a clone can tie you up in court unnecessarily, such as MySQL AB v. NuSphere, where a non-GPL clone of the mysql client API is being attacked unfairly. There are many instances where a similarities to another software package of something has caused horrible legal battles that do nothing but make the lawyers rich and make programmers find new careers in disgust.

These days it seems dangerous to program without becoming incorporated or doing it under the umbrella of a big company. Who wants to lose their house because some company dragged you through court or demanded an absurd settlement for "damages".

...until they get the law changed or make the "penalty" so puny, it doesn't matter to them if they do it and get caught.

However, they may find a way to do it anyway. They didn't get the SSSCA or like laws passed, but Microsoft and Apple's systems are certainly looking more and more like what would have been required.

Who is to say a law won't be passed once most people think such controls are "normal." Who is to say the companies won't start abusing those controls once they have a stranglehold. Maybe you will no longer be allowed to publish any videos on the internet, or maybe your audience will be limited. Who is to say you will be able to buy hardware which you are allowed to install the software you want or programs you wrote. These are essential freedoms at stake. These are freedom of speech and freedom of property issues.

If you lock yourself into the Digital Censorship Management mongers, there may be no way out.

Oh how the users of slashdot have forgotten. The entertainment cartel tried to pass much worse. They tried to get laws passed which would require all computers to be DRM controlled.

Not only did they demand a system to keep their files from being copied (at great expense to your computer--they wanted every audio and video input to scan for watermarks. The standards would also require all multimedia hardware (sound cards, video cards, CD/DVD drives) to encrypt everything, so no one could tap into the lines to "steal" any content. They also asked for such features as the ability to erase "pirated"[1] files remotely.

Check out the SSSCA and CBDTPA. Note the euphemism "security" for DRM.

Palladium was Microsoft's answer to this. They tried to sell it as protection against viruses and such. Look in the section titled "How does Palladium work?"

The PC-specific secret coding within "Palladium" that makes stolen files useless on other machines is physically and cryptographically locked within the hardware of the machine.

Palladium was renamed Next Generation Secure Computing Base. It was supposed to go into Longhorn (renamed Vista), but apparently they never got it working properly. Some say this is why Vista is so screwed up.

In fact, I would say the whole reason MS went into the game console business was to test out their DRM ideas so they can incorporate it into mainstream Windows. Game console companies lock down their computers[2] hardcore. It is difficult to run any "unauthorized" programs on their systems, and you risk being arrested for being a "pirate" if you do.

[1] "Pirated" files, meaning any file they don't like.

[2] A game console is just a computer with more emphasis on graphics acceleration and locked down so their manufacturer can charge "royalties" for the privilege of writing programs for their console. Look at the parts in a game console--CPU, GPU, and such. There is no reason you couldn't run a word processor or other programs on it if you were given approval. In fact even the Nintendo DS has a version of the Opera web browser for it.

That's quite a trick considering the net was created in 1969, and Al Gore did not join the Congress until 1977. Maybe he borrowed an Omni from Time Voyager Phineas Bogg and zipped back to the 1960s.

So the Internet, where millions of people and businesses could communicate online, sprung fourth, wholly formed in 1969? Or maybe it was a bit of a process, starting with two computers and ending up with millions? A process that...might have been given a shove (and government funding)...by a politician from Tennessee?

You don't have to take my word for it. Vint Cerf, inventor of TCP/IP:

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Too bad you suckers of Satan's cock were so busy trashing Gore in 2000 that you completely ignored the fact that Bush took credit for patients rights legislation that he fucking vetoed as governor of Texas.

Excerpt from Wolf's majority opinion:

In addition, the two defendants placed the photos on a computer and then, using the internet, transferred them to another computer. Not only can the two computers be hacked, but by transferring the photos using the net, the photos may have been and perhaps still are accessible to the provider and/or other individuals. Computers also allow for long-term storage of information which may then be disseminated at some later date. The State has a compelling interest in seeing that material which will have such negative consequences is never produced.

Judge Thomas concurred with Wolf.

Also worth quoting is this, from the dissenting opinion by Judge Philip Padovano (below the majority opinion on that link):

That the Internet is easily hacked, as the majority says, is not material. The issue is whether the child intended to keep the photos private, not whether it would be possible for someone to obtain the photos against her will and thereby to invade her privacy. The majority states that the child "placed the photos on a computer and then, using the internet, transferred them to another computer," as if to suggest that she left them out carelessly for anyone to find. That is not what happened. She sent the photos to her boyfriend at his personal e-mail address, intending to share them only with him.

I was going to ask you for a reference to this story but thought I'd give Google a try first:

A short summary: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/20/teen-couple-who-phot.html
The summary also contains a link to a more authoritive source: http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+Teens+prosecuted+for+racy+photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html
And a link to the legal opinion, to see for yourself: http://politechbot.com/docs/child.porn.laws.apply.to.minors.020807.html

I'm amazed this actually seems to be a TRUE story. Not even the Mythbusters could have proven that myth, yet it's true!

This already happened like a year ago. A couple had a picture of themselves and it was sent via email. http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/20/teen-couple-who-phot.html

And here's the ruling that Child Porn laws apply to minors, that will probably be referred to in the current case. And this all was at the start of 2007. http://politechbot.com/docs/child.porn.laws.apply.to.minors.020807.html

(For our chineese brothers and sisters - who will have true freedom of speach one day)

Use Case
1.5 Proxy "Safe harbor" A political opponent to a government publishes articles putting the government in an unfavorable light. The government, having a law against any opposition, tries to identify the source of the negative articles but the articles having been published via a proxy server, is unable to do so protecting the anonymity of the author.

First I will add a plug for https://www.bloglines.com/ â" RSS feeds where ever I can log in, via HTTPS. Great for those feeds I read whenever & everywhere; and for those I only check when waiting to board the airplane. In my bloglines collection I have around 400 feeds, which will grow after looking through these threads. :) Some selections that hopefully no one else has mentioned:

Amusement:
http://failblog.wordpress.com/feed/
All about the Fail

http://lolbots.com/?feed=rss2
Robots making the LOLz, though not updated often.

http://lolgeeks.com/?feed=rss2
Geeks making the LOLz, though not updated often.

The latest limerick database entries - http://peeron.com/tickers/limerickdb.xml

The Triumph of Bullshit - http://bullshit.tumblr.com/rss

Diesel Sweeties by R Stevens - http://www.dieselsweeties.com/ds-unifeed.xml

PHD Comics - http://www.phdcomics.com/gradfeed.php
Ever spent time in academia? You will relate to this web comic.

Unshelved - http://www.unshelved.com/rss.aspx
A web comic about a library. Ssssshhhuusshh!

Indexed - http://indexed.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Take two (or more) topics and compare them using graphs & charts â" full of insight & lolz.

Computerworld Shark Tank News - http://feeds.computerworld.com/Computerworld/Shark/Tank
Many stories, full of humor and face palm

Overheard in the Office - http://www.overheardintheoffice.com/atom.xml
Instead of what was overheard in New York, now worldwide and from your office.

Common geek topics (those blogs that seem to hit all the topics days or weeks before you see them on Slashdot):
Didnt You Hear... http://www.didntyouhear.com/feed/

The Daily WTF - http://thedailywtf.com/rss.aspx

Global Nerdy - http://globalnerdy.com/feed/

Shopping:
http://content.dealnews.com/dealnews/rss/todays-edition.xml
Many of those geek toys you need

Newegg.com daily deals: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=DailyDeals&nm_mc=OTC-RSS
Need I say more?

Slickdeals: http://www.slickdeals.net/rss.php
Need I say more?

Woot! http://www.woot.com/blog/rss.aspx

Dumb political stuff:
Homeland Stupidity: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HomelandStupidity
Government gaffes, bureaucratic blunders and incumbent incompetence

Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/backend/GrokLaw.rdf

Declan McCullagh's Politech http://www.politechbot.com/info/rss/politech.xml
Also not updated often, but on target when it is.

Cryptome: http://cryptome.org/cryptome.xml
You can get lost here for hours

Music:
House of Blues: http://hob.com/venues/clubvenues/lasvegas/
The RSS feed for the local House of B

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:43:58 -0400
From: vinton g. cerf
To: Declan McCullaugh , farber@cis.upenn.edu
Cc: rkahn@cnri.reston.va.us
Subject: Al Gore and the Internet

Dave and Declan,

I am taking the liberty of sending to you both a brief
summary of Al Gore's Internet involvement, prepared by
Bob Kahn and me. As you know, there have been a seemingly
unending series of jokes chiding the vice president for
his assertion that he "took the initiative in creating
the Internet."

Bob and I believe that the vice president deserves significant
credit for his early recognition of the importance of what has
become the Internet.

I thought you might find this short summary of sufficient
interest to share it with Politech and the IP lists, respectively.

===

Al Gore and the Internet

By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administr

Precisely. Because gun ownership in the USA has prevented unconstitutional laws, illegal wiretapping and government-mandated human rights abuses.

Gun laws are now being tightened in Australia (thankfully), with farmers being required to justify ownership of handguns. And it's about time.

The civilian ownership of guns in the USA is a false sense of power and security. Should anything happen, in response to which the use of guns would be appropriate, your army of (1) Go-it-alone Rambos; (2) idiots who don't know which end of the gun to hold; (3) patriots who will side with the government, no matter what they say or do; and (4) wack-jobs who will use it as an excuse to carry out personal vendettas will be entirely ineffective against the large amount of the military and police-force who will do as they are told.

And Vint Cerf agrees with him.

Queue the "because it took Al Gore so long to take the initiative in creating it" jokes...

Not surprising information for any slashdotter who had been, you know, paying attention.

Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn's letter to Declan McCullagh defending Gore, who was primarily responsible for spreading the "invented the internet" meme via articles in Wired, dates from 2000 and is here:

http://www.politechbot.com/p-01394.html

(as much as the internet can the invention of anyone, it's the invention of Cerf and Kahn, who invented TCP/IP).

As they say, a lie can go around the world and back while the truth is lacing up its boots. McCullagh, whose libertarian sympathies were never much of a secret, never apologized for his role in smearing Gore. He's now chief political correspondent for CNET.

Too bad they spam people who use their service or email their customers: http://www.politechbot.com/p-04457.html

Activate TIME TRAVEL...

http://www.politechbot.com/2005/01/06/test-bed-for/

Half-Life 2: Test bed for Internet licensing techniques

... There are many reports on the Steam user forums that legitimate game owners are being banned for using cheats or hacks that modify the behavior of the game (even the single-player game!), and a Valve staffer says explicitly that the Steam system will be used to enforce violations of the Steam/HL2 license ...

Regrettably, the original Steam forum posting has been removed. No surprise there. But Valve was enforcing hacking restrictions *on the single player game* in 2004. Mod your non-multiplayer game, and it's taken away from you.

Region-locking is pretty tame by comparison.

Rick R.

They cited the Atlantic v. Howell case to instruct the jury in the Minnesota case.

I tried posting the paragraph from the document and encountered a filter here on slashdot.

you'll have to read for yourself

Ahem:

http://politechbot.com/docs/enzi.sales.tax.bill.05 2407.pdf

"Thank you Hilary and the Dems for destroying the last bits of American competitiveness, and thank you to the American people for voting these imbeciles in."

It would appear that the likes of YOU voted these particular imbeciles in:

http://enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction =AboutWyoming.WyomingDelegation

hey guys check this out:

wtf is this?
excerpt of http://politechbot.com/docs/doj.intellectual.prope rty.protection.act.summary.051407.txt



Increase the maximum penalty for counterfeiting offenses from 10 years to 20 years imprisonment where the defendant knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury, and increase the maximum penalty to life imprisonment where the defendant knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death;


what the hell is this? are they trying to charge us on attempted bodily injury to a corporation

can anybody explain how this would appy in context?

Listen, if we want to beat this thing, write your representatives in Congress and make sure they understand the Will of the People. Also, I skimmed over the proposed legislation. Apparently it affects *all* forms of copyright infringement, including counterfeit prescription drugs, etc, not just MAFIAA stuff. But the wiretapping is kinda spooky, as if I don't have enough to worry about already with the Bill of Rights shot to pieces. Good thing I still have my gun... and I plan to keep it.

http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.house.gov/

Let's get this thing. Here's a PDF of the proposition: http://politechbot.com/docs/doj.intellectual.prope rty.protection.act.2007.051407.pdf
- CautionaryX

Read the legislation. The life in prision provision is with respect to situations in line with existing product tapering, etc laws.

http://politechbot.com/docs/doj.intellectual.prope rty.protection.act.2007.051407.pdf

Overall this proposal is a crock of shit.

They're hardly rivals.

http://www.politechbot.com/p-01394.html

"By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development."

So it's Florida that leads us to the police state... I woulda guessed California or Boston, at least after the last few months...

The fact that they were electronic photos is one of the core arguments used by the majority opinion:

In addition, the two defendants placed the photos on a computer and then, using the internet, transferred them to another computer. Not only can the two computers be hacked, but by transferring the photos using the net, the photos may have been and perhaps still are accessible to the provider and/or other individuals. Computers also allow for long-term storage of information which may then be disseminated at some later date. The State has a compelling interest in seeing that material which will have such negative consequences is never produced.

But this argument is really irrelevant to the Court's logic. The court essentially argues that minors have no expectation of privacy because they're too immature to establish adult relationships or keep secrets. Moreover, they argue that since minors cannot legally consent to having pornographic photos of themselves, they are being exploited, and the State has an interest in preventing this. This very much parallels the arguments for prosecuting two minors for statutory rape.

More shenanigans

Yali, Thanks for the reference material. I definitely plan to read it through. I want to share this letter with you, written by professors with the Expression Policy Project that more directly challenge the methodology and findings of some of these studies: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02882.html It doesn't go into a high level of detail, but it questions analog studies in particular, some of which have been specifically referenced by media attention to the issue. I doubt either of us will be convinced to abandon our opinions on the validity of lab research to measure real world impact, but I sincerely appreciate your attention to the topic.

Isn't this bill going at things the wrong way?
There are far fewer predators than there are children, so it would be easier to regulate their behavior than to force filtering technologies onto every primary/secondary school and library in the nation.

Also, after reading the text of the bill (available in PDF http://www.politechbot.com/docs/fitzpatrick.social .networking.051006.pdf ) I noticed that there is an exception for computers that are being used for 'Educational' purposes... so doesn't that exempt the primary target of the law? Or did they only want to block social networking sites that students are visiting from school computers after 3PM?

Right click on the blacked out text starting on page 18 in the document the article links to here.

A popup menu appears with the phrase "Lookup XXXXX" where XXXXX is the word that is blacked out. Cool, eh? =)

Plaintiffs contend that the Klein Declaration is itself sufficient to make out a prima facie case on their statutory claims. But even if one focused only on the two claims as to which plaintiffs make any argument, the Court could not determine the validity of those claims without first evaluating information covered by the government's state secrets assertion. Plaintiffs' suggestion that they need only show that certain communications have been split off into a "secret room" strips multiple elements from the statutes on which their claims are based and glosses over numerous issues that would have to be explored if their claims were ever to be fully litigated.

AT&T cannot confirm or deny any of the facts on which plaintiffs' complaint is based. But it is certain that the Klein Declaration and its associated exhibits are insufficient to demonstrate any illegal conduct by AT&T. Plaintiffs offer no evidence regarding what, if anything, actually happens to any data once it allegedly enters the alleged "secret room." Plaintiffs' purported expert provides merely "suggestive" configurations between unknown equipment in an AT&T facility. See Declaration of J. Scott Marcus In Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 32) 74. His strongest opinion, explicitly based "in terms of media claims" is conditioned entirely on a supposition: "if the government is in fact in communication with this infrastructure." Id. 39. Plaintiff's purported expert, of course, has no knowledge whether this is true or not.

Even accepting their allegations as true, plaintiffs' declarations fail to establish their claims. Key factual issues that bear directly on the viability of their legal claims and AT&T's defenses are subject to the Government's state secrets assertion and are unavailable. Without either confirming or denying the plaintiffs' assertions, AT&T notes that the facts recited by plaintiffs are entirely consistent with any number of legitimate Internet monitoring systems, such as those used to detect viruses and stop hackers. Although the plaintiffs ominously refer to the equipment as the "Surveillance Configuration," the same physical equipment could be utilized exclusively for other surveillance in full compliance with the terms of FISA - which even the plaintiffs themselves would not contend is unlawful. See id. 40 ("The SG3 Configurations could be used for a number of legitimate purposes."). The mere existence of these so-called configurations, even if plaintiffs' allegations were accurate, would not by itself be prima facie evidence of what - if any - information is intercepted or divulged or by whom. And it certainly is not prima facie evidence of any illegality. Plaintiffs fail to establish even a prima facie case that there has been an "interception" of "contents" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 2510(4) & (8), whether there has been "electronic surveillance" within the meaning of 50 U.S.C. 1801(f), and whether particular statutory exemptions do not apply, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 2702(c). Certainly nothing compels the inference that the contents of communications of "millions of ordinary Americans," (Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 30) at 11), have been divulged to the government, in contradiction of the government's statement that communications are intercepted only if the government has "a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda," or otherwise affiliated with al Qaeda. Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice (Attachment 2) (Dkt. 20).

And what I found... wasn't as bad as the news reports made it out to be. Granted, it's still silly and won't stop kids from accessing sites they want to see. But it wouldn't, as now written, ban library access to all of Web 2.0.

The bill would require federally-funded libraries to ban access to Web 2.0 sites through which students:

(aa) may easily access or be presented with obscene or in decent material;
(bb) may easily be subject to unlawful sexual advances, unlawful requests for sexual favors, or repeated offensive comments of a sexual nature from adults; or
(cc) may easily access other material that is harmful to minors;

So if your Web 2.0 sites don't allow readers to "easily access" the bad stuff, you are clear.

*Of course* the devil be in dem der details. Which still makes this bill a lousy idea. But it wouldn't force librarians to shut down access to every discussion board and group blog on the Web.

"Sorta like in the U.K. now, what is it - four cameras for every citizen? Sad, really but look at it this way: Has anyone ever done something to your car or your property while you were sleeping?"

Yup, but cameras under *their* control will have rights unto themselves that trump your rights. I kid you not:

http://www.politechbot.com/2006/01/12/annoy-a-spee d/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/01/11/nvsign11.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/11 /ixhome.html

The above example is wrong on so many levels (e.g. nothing was done wrong in the first place, rather harsh punishment (can't drive for a year), likely targetted by sex and age, protecting a machine feelings, that this was noticed at all, the fact this was even prosecuted or wasn't even thrown out when the judge saw it or the guy was found guilty, camera used for reasons beyond its original intent, considering the intent of the camera why the camera was even taking the picture in the first place).

I've written about non-compliance as a solution to the REAL ID Act.

Fortunately the act was written so states could decline to comply, and not have to deal with losing funding (which is unavailable to help states comply anyway.)

As I point out, on a day to day basis most people don't need a federally accepted ID card. It's cheaper for the states to tell people who need a federal ID card to just get a passport (which about 25% of Americans already have.)

If worse comes to worst, the occasionaly traveller can just travel ID-less. The airline will decide what to do with the ID card, and if it's not accepted, the passenger will become a selectee (which is the normal procedure for a passenger without ID.)

Q) What do patent lawyers and terrorists have in common?

A) The more fear, uncertainty, and doubt they spread...the better they do.

Most software patent claims are defensive. They are made in anticipation of being sued at some future date over an implemented algorithm. If companies had reassurance that such a thing was impossible they wouldn't be making the patent claims...and a lot of lawyers would be out of work. It's a very old form of racketeering. You have to pay for 'protection' from other organized criminals by hiring your own organized criminal to prepare your defence. Of course, as most of us know 99% of these so-called "software patents" can be found in introductory computer science textbooks...and of course, only the organized criminals (IP laywers) benefit from this process.

So, just like terrorists...the lawyers have snuck their way in and they are hijacking our industry. The apathy, ignorance, and lack of perception at the higher levels of government have allowed it to happen. Then again, when the majority of legislators are themselves lawyers it's not hard to see the cronyism in action.

Al Gore spent 25+ years of his life championing freedom of information, accessibility, using the internet to lower barriers of entry and to disempower corrupt structures like gangs of wrongful IP prosecutors turning a buck through the patent system...sadly > 50% of the voting american public didn't consider these freedoms a priority in 2000.

Software patents are a scandal, and they won't go away as long as the political failings underneath them are ignored.

Ummm...if you are "in public"...doesn't that over rule your "privacy" rights a little?

The fact that you walk around on some street is a public information. The data your phone company keeps about you is private, and can only be exchanged with others if you give permission or with a legal ground. Having said that, it is apparently not that hard to fabricate a legal ground, given the Netherlands government reputation for eavesdropping.

Does the phone company know if you depart to other countries automatically, or does this only occur when you actually make a call, SMS, or do internet activity from your phone?

Can they, with multiple phone towers, identify all phones in a given area?

Or do they have to know your phone number and know to look?

The wiretapping order they need for this type of thing is given for an individual phone. I don't know about the technical possibilities, and the available data from foreign operators probably depends on bilateral treaties. The government does require phone operators on the Dutch market to install equipment to facilitate investigation. The former state operator KPN even had a special department for eavesdropping before it was privatized. The phone operators supposedly proactively provide the government with information about public health risks.

  Native #1: ``Do you think the police know about these devil computers?''

Native #2: ``If they come from California, then the FBI oughta know about 'em.''

Also consider this

Hmmm... Obviously I'm not a US citizen, but it seems that not everyone feels that way. In fact it looks like the US already has their Real ID bill passed, and not everyone welcomed it with open arms.

All the things you mention are abhorrant, but none of them have anything to do with a national ID card. The police can stop you and ask for your papers today in most states. A national ID card won't change that at all. The rules for how the police act are totally seperate from the rules on what constitutes a valid ID.

Fair points and I'll try and address them.

"but none of them have anything to do with a national ID card". They do however have to do with how the ID card is being sold to the british public. The Id card is being touted as, among other fairy tales, a panacea against terrorism. And yet, as pointed out by an ancestor post, that id is useless unless checked, and to check them widely and efficiently would require measures similar to the ones I describe.

"The police can stop you and ask for your papers today in most states". But if the card is to have any hope of serving its alleged purpose this would need to be endemic. There were checkpoints like this set up in Northern Ireland during the height of the Troubles. I understand that everyone there thought they were a Bad Thing. I sometimes wonder how many of those who say "Harumph! ID cards! Jolly Good Thing Too!" have actually thought through the implications, or whether they would be so keen if they had. Of course, everyone always assumes that they won't be on the receiving end.

"The rules for how the police act are totally seperate from the rules on what constitutes a valid ID". Arguably perhaps, but for the cards to work as advertised... well I've done that bit. The question is whether the government is planning such repressive measures, or whether they're lying about the cards effectveness whilst harbouring ulterior motives, or whether they are just plain incompetant.

Let me give you a little background here. The UK is the most heavily surveilled nation on the planet. Recent legislation saw the right to silence of an accused criminal removed. We have curfews in some parts of the country now - only for certain age groups at the moment, but that can quickly change. We have travel restrictions; usually applied in cases of overseas football matches but again the mechanism is there and is not limited to football hooliganism. Now they want to remove the right to a trial by jury. Oh and resign from the charter for human rights as well.

The last journalist to seriously embarrass the government was sacked, along with the director general of the BBC, while the whistle blower in the case was hounded to his grave.

Does anyone else see a trend developing here?

Almost all of the above is the work of the current government. I hope you'll excuse me if I don't fall over myself in my haste to extend them the benefit of the doubt.

What exactly is the downside to having ID standards that are harder to fake?

ID standards and implementations (in the non-code sense of the word) are not the same thing. Let's not confuse matters unnecessarily. My privacy in only violated by the government when the government forces me to present an ID.

And I've already explained why I find this less than reassuring. All the same, I think we're losing sight of something fundamental here:

The single best reason why we in the UK should not have ID cards is that we do not want them. We live in a dem

I could take adult porn, and photoshop it to look like child porn if I so wished.

Incidentally, as of 1996 (Child Pornography Prevention Act), that is also illegal.
1(5) - This makes simulated child pornography (photoshopped faces on adults' bodies) illegal
1(6)(A) - This makes blocking out someone's face in pornography illegal because it would "obscure their identity"?
1(6)(B) and (C) - This also makes simulated child pornography (photoshopping) illegal
1(8) - This justifies the illegality as preventing a person from being "seduced" into becoming a child molester.

While Microsoft is not specifically mentioned in the text of SSSCA, somebody has to be in charge of certifying the software and handing out the digital certificates - and Microsoft keeps coming up as the logical choice. Notice that SSSCA makes illegal "any device capable of transmitting and receiving digital copyrighted works". That means any general purpose computer.

Under DMCA, the present law, publishers can encrypt media such that it can legally only be decrypted using an authorized player - e.g. DVD. That is why I would be breaking the law if I actually watched any of the DVD movies I own (or at least anyone providing me with an unauthorized player would be breaking the law). The current situation is already so lopsided, you would think the MPAA et al would be satisfied, but greed is never satisfied.

The camera can scan 1000 license plates per minute

That's why, as the man says, it doesn't matter if they don't have facial recognition, or the processing power to do real massive pattern searching and cross referencing with all the information they're collecting (they gov, they corp, it make no difference.) They can just keep it all until they do.