Slashdot Mirror

A month ago, the MPAA filed its report [PDF] with the Senate Judiciary Committee on the terrors of analog copying. I quote: "in order to help plug the hole, watermark detectors would be required in" -- are you sitting down? -- "all devices that perform analog to digital conversions." At their page Protecting Creative Works in a Digital Age, the Senate lays out the issues they'll be looking at, including briefs from corporate groups, and provides a comment form so your opinion can be heard as well. As Cory Doctorow writes: "this is a much more sweeping (and less visible) power-grab than the Hollings Bill, and it's going forward virtually unopposed. ...the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group is bare weeks away from turning over a veto on new technologies to Hollywood." Doctorow's article on the "analog hole" for the EFF does a great job of explaining the issues to non-electrical-engineers, and has many thought-provoking examples of how requiring such technology would be a giant step backwards.

A month ago, the MPAA filed its report [PDF] with the Senate Judiciary Committee on the terrors of analog copying. I quote: "in order to help plug the hole, watermark detectors would be required in" -- are you sitting down? -- "all devices that perform analog to digital conversions." At their page Protecting Creative Works in a Digital Age, the Senate lays out the issues they'll be looking at, including briefs from corporate groups, and provides a comment form so your opinion can be heard as well. As Cory Doctorow writes: "this is a much more sweeping (and less visible) power-grab than the Hollings Bill, and it's going forward virtually unopposed. ...the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group is bare weeks away from turning over a veto on new technologies to Hollywood." Doctorow's article on the "analog hole" for the EFF does a great job of explaining the issues to non-electrical-engineers, and has many thought-provoking examples of how requiring such technology would be a giant step backwards.

forehead writes "Lawmeme is running an interesting piece on piracy in the digital age. It covers a number of the logical fallacies often cited by the major media companies and certain lawmakers."

jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."

jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."

jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."

jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."

jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."

jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."

jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."

jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."

jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."

jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."

jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."

jonathanjo writes "Yesterday (5/15/02) the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: "Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting." This was a review of the work of CARP, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, the group formed by the DMCA that has closed down webstreaming for many independent radio stations with new high fees and exhaustive reporting requirements. Representatives from RIAA, Digital Media Association, Arbitron, Real Networks, and Yahoo gave testimony, as well as people representing two independent Vermont webcasters, and the American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists. Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) testimony was surprisingly sympathetic to small webcasters (especially by inviting two from his state to speak). Orrin Hatch gave the expected pro-DMCA boilerplate."

Jason Haas (haaz) sent us the transcript below of an in-depth interview he conducted with copyright critic and author Siva Vaidhyanathan. It's worth your time to read -- Vaidhyanathan makes some interesting arguments, concentrating on online consequences of current copyright laws (and bills), but with some interesting digressions. He isn't shy about the effects of laws like the CBDTPA.

Jason Haas writes: "While bad copyright laws such as the DMCA are having strong negative consequences, an even worse bill, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), is now before Congress. The CBDTPA would have radical effects upon many of the devices that we take for granted -- including the computer you are now reading this on. Bad copyright law is among the many things that we talked about. Siva Vaidhyanathan has a thing or two to say about this. An avid defender of peer-to-peer, Siva recently debated one of the MPAA's top lawyers on copyright law. A recorded version of this will be available on the web in late May.

Furthermore, he has written Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity, the first fully fleshed history of American copyright law ever to be put in book form. The cool thing about this book is that although it's about copyright law, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand it. Copyrights and Copywrongs covers American copyright law's origins in seventeenth century English law, tracks Mark Twain's efforts to extend copyright in the nineteenth century, and ends at the dawn of the twenty-first century with the rise of Napster and the DMCA."

Jason Haas: How are you?

Siva Vaidhyanathan : Stressed. I'm trying to finish my second book, which will likely be called "The Anarchist in the Library." Basic Books will publish it next year.

JH: That sounds like it may be of interest to Slashdotters.

SV: Probably. I lifted many of the insights from Slashdot posts. The book will be an examination of the battles between efforts to centralize information and efforts to decentralize information. It starts with peer to peer, and moves on to battles over encryption, the commercialization and regulation of science, the regulation of algorithms, and the efforts to fight terrorism using information policy. One of the most interesting stories I'm following is the role that encryption plays on both sides of these battles. Some efforts to centralize and control information rely on encryption. For example, DVDs, and some efforts to distribute and liberate information (Freenet) depend on encryption.

JH: Your book, Copyrights and Copywrongs, covers the evolution of copyright law from its origins to the late twentieth century. Where did you get the idea for this?

SV: From rap music. I grew up with rap music. But in the early 1990s I noticed the music was changing. Everyone else was paying attention to the lyrics -- the sexism and the violence and the anger. I was observing how the underlying body of samples were getting thinner, more predictable, more obvious, less playful. I had heard that there had been some copyright conflicts in 1990 and 1991. So I suspected that lawsuits had chilled playful and transgressive sampling. I was right. The courts had stolen the soul. And rap music is poorer for it. We used to get fresh, exciting, walls of sound that were a language unto themselves. By the mid-1990s, all we got were jeep beats and heavy bass.

JH: Are you dissing Ice Cube?

SV: [laughs] No! He's an O.G.! He and other artists are handcuffed by the law. From my research on rap, I got curious about the evolution of American copyright law and how it altered and got altered by the rise of different media technologies and forms of expression. So I traced the changes from the 19th century publishing industries through the rise of film and television, through blues, jazz, rock, and rap, and finally to the digital moment.

JH: The book ends just after the DMCA has gone into effect and Napster has begun its rise. What's happened since then?

SV: I knew that Napster would radically change the ways we interact with the copyright system. And I knew the DMCA would radically undermined the democratic safeguards that were built into our copyright system. But I knew that there was much more to this story. So I wrote an article for The Nation which defended Napster and peer-to-peer. I used this as the starting point for what would become the second book.

JH: In your first book, you refer to the DMCA as an example of what you call a "thick" copyright law. Can you explain the difference between "thick" copyright law and a "thin" law?

SV: I think the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is misnamed. I don't consider it a copyright act. I consider it an anti-copyright act. Copyright is a fluid, open, democratic set of protocols. Conflicts are anticipated by Congress and mediated by courts. The DMCA wipes out the sense of balance, anticipation, and mediation, and installs a technocratic regime. In other words, code tells you whether you can use a piece of material. Under copyright, you could use a piece of material and face the consequences. The DMCA replaces the copyright system with cold, hard technology.

It takes human judgment out of the system and drains the fluidity out of what was a humanely designed and evolved system.

But getting back to thick and thin copyright.

One way to measure the thickness of a copyright law is to look at the duration of protection. If works enter the public domain before an author's life expectancy expires, then it's a thin and democratic system. If the duration of copyright protection is absurdly long and potentially indefinite, then it's way too thick.

JH: Senator Fritz Hollings' has introduced a new copyright bill to Congress, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act. What what would it do? Is it another "thick" law?

SV: Yeah, it would be as thick as the Berlin Wall. But again, it's the extension of a technocratic control regime and a further abandonment of real copyright. All the attention this bill has received has generated an impressive movement for users' rights. People are finally waking up to the fact that their rights to make private, non-commercial use of material they buy is in danger. I think we should all thank Senator Hollings and the MPAA for sparking a revolt against copyright tyranny.

The title of the bill implies that by giving movie companies what they want, they will give us this wonderful library of streamed films, and we will finally have a reason to sign up for and pay for broadband. Paradoxically, nothing sells broadband like peer-to-peer, which is exactly what it would try to stop.

JH: CBDTPA would make a new computer ship with copy protection. What would it do to things like the iPod?

SV: The iPod would be hard to justify under the new law. But the real issue is the personal computer. The computer does three basic things: it does math, it stores data, and it copies data. A computer can't operate without those three basic functions. The law would limit these three basic functions, thereby cutting the Achilles heel of the PC. It would be just another appliance.

JH: It's that bad?

SV: Yes. If the law passes, I could send you a file that I made, but the machine would prevent you from making copies of just about anything else, including sound from web sites, video from web sites, etc. The law works completely for the benefit of big media companies that can afford to conform to the licensed encryption standards of the industry. Only the big boys could benefit from this law.

The law would only affect new stuff, so it'd be your next DVD players, your next TiVo, your next PC. The stuff you have now is going to do more and work better than any hardware that anyone could roll out after the law passes. But there's another, bigger issue. According to an early version, the bill covers not just hardware but software. Under it, you can't distribute a software package that has copy features. Furthermore, how in the world can anything released under the GPL have closed copy-protection standards embedded in it? It can't. It would make the GPL illegal, and future versions of Linux illegal. Even if Congress focused on hardware and excluded software, we all know that distinction is a matter of modular convenience and industry practice rather than a natural distinction. But nobody ever accused the U.S. Senate of understanding technology or thinking through long-term effects of tech policy.

JH: What can people do to stop this bill from passing?

SV: The first thing people should do is check out and support such organizations as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, digitalconsumer.org, and publicknowledge.org. The latter two are fairly new. And they are a sign that people are getting angry and active about these issues. I am particularly excited about publicknowledge.org, a public interest advocacy group that is coordinating and publicizing the concerns of a wide array of concerned citizens and groups.

But just as importantly, discuss this measure with your local librarians. Librarians are very active in opposing it. In 1998, very few groups actively opposed the DMCA, but librarians were at the front lines of its opposition. And once again, librarians are our best friends in this battle. And of course, the simple answer is, write members of the Senate Judiciary Community. [The American Library Association is a national organization of librarians that is active in defending freedom of information and access. The Senate Judiciary Committee can be found over here.]

If public anger doesn't stop this bill now, then we know that the corrupting power of the entertainment industries is at crisis level. The changes in copyright have not been great for our culture and our democracy. But I am optimistic that this new level of awareness and activism will make a difference.

Jason Haas retired from the computer industry in April 2001, and now juggles being a student, fatherhood, and progressive political activism.

This past year, Siva Vaidhyanathan has been an assistant professor in the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin, but is moving to New York University in the fall. The web page for his book, Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity, is at NYU Press.

Anonymous Cowards rule writes: "RAIN is reporting that the fuss raised by save Internet radio, Save Our Streams and the recent webcaster's march on Washington has caught the attention of some in Congress. Specifically, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday entitled, 'Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting.' The list of those who will testify (which is not yet complete) seems heavily weighted toward the RIAA and large content providers ... but it will still be interesting to see how this pans out. (Is Congress completely controlled by big business or just slightly?) Remember to mark your calendars for 21 May when the Librarian of Congress has to choose whether to accept, reject or ammend the current royalty rules (the NPRM which was a result of the CARP)."

Anonymous Cowards rule writes: "RAIN is reporting that the fuss raised by save Internet radio, Save Our Streams and the recent webcaster's march on Washington has caught the attention of some in Congress. Specifically, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday entitled, 'Copyright Royalties: Where is the Right Spot On The Dial For Webcasting.' The list of those who will testify (which is not yet complete) seems heavily weighted toward the RIAA and large content providers ... but it will still be interesting to see how this pans out. (Is Congress completely controlled by big business or just slightly?) Remember to mark your calendars for 21 May when the Librarian of Congress has to choose whether to accept, reject or ammend the current royalty rules (the NPRM which was a result of the CARP)."

jonerik writes "Wired News has an article today on the last Apple holdout on Capitol Hill, Ngozi Pole. Pole, the office and systems administrator at Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D-MA) Boston and Washington D.C. offices, argues that the Senate Office of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA), which makes technology recommendations to senators, wants to make its job as easy as possible by pushing Windows-based applications as much as they can. According to the article, 'The SAA allocates $250,000 per six-year term to each senator. The department had hoped Pole would use the budget to replace aging Macs in Kennedy's offices. Instead, Pole will spend the remainder of his budget through 2003 filling Senator Kennedy's Washington office with new flat-panel iMacs.' Unsurprisingly, the SAA declined to comment."

jonerik writes "Wired News has an article today on the last Apple holdout on Capitol Hill, Ngozi Pole. Pole, the office and systems administrator at Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D-MA) Boston and Washington D.C. offices, argues that the Senate Office of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA), which makes technology recommendations to senators, wants to make its job as easy as possible by pushing Windows-based applications as much as they can. According to the article, 'The SAA allocates $250,000 per six-year term to each senator. The department had hoped Pole would use the budget to replace aging Macs in Kennedy's offices. Instead, Pole will spend the remainder of his budget through 2003 filling Senator Kennedy's Washington office with new flat-panel iMacs.' Unsurprisingly, the SAA declined to comment."

happyclam writes "CNN says that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is announcing a new combination bill that would do two things: (a) outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places, and (b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today. The first part makes sense, but the second clearly treads on free speech to some extent and will have a hard time going through, I imagine." I wonder if having an actor at the press conference is a new requirement for a bill to be introduced in congress.

happyclam writes "CNN says that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is announcing a new combination bill that would do two things: (a) outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places, and (b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today. The first part makes sense, but the second clearly treads on free speech to some extent and will have a hard time going through, I imagine." I wonder if having an actor at the press conference is a new requirement for a bill to be introduced in congress.

ccfpark writes "I am going to Washington D.C. next week to talk to my senator (Bill Nelson of FL) and his technology advisor, Reg Lichty, about the CBDTPA. I am personally against this bill as it has the possibility of labeling me as a criminal for my participation in Open Sorce projects such as Handhelds.Org and Tuxscreen, where we endeavor replace proprietary operating systems on consumer electronics with Linux. If this bill is passed it may lead to outlawing these types of activities because it could circumvent software copy protection in these products. What I need are some good resources for formulating a business and political argument against this bill, so that I can speak to these politicians on their level."

leviramsey writes: "The Senate Judiciary Committee has posted a website dealing with Copyright law, especially with respect to the Internet. Hearing transcripts are posted, as are relevant laws. A comment form is provided. They do not want anonymous comments, so that they may publish them later."

leviramsey writes: "The Senate Judiciary Committee has posted a website dealing with Copyright law, especially with respect to the Internet. Hearing transcripts are posted, as are relevant laws. A comment form is provided. They do not want anonymous comments, so that they may publish them later."

Gemini and many others wrote in with still more info regarding CBDTPA, formerly the SSSCA. Wired has a story. Cryptome has transcribed the text. The Senate Judiciary Committee has a web-form where you can submit comments (although directly contacting your representatives may be better). IMHO, the best thing people can do is explain to less-knowledgeable folks exactly what is at stake. When ABC News (Disney) and Fox News (News Corporation) discuss this, they're not going to be spending much time talking about the downside. Update: 03/23 00:55 GMT by M : EFF has an alert with a sample letter to Congress and background on the issue.

morgue-ann writes: "AOL Time-Warner and Intel have released their Joint Statement of Principles in response to recent hearings in the Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committees (Leahy/Hatch & Hollings/Stevens). The cover three issues: the broadcast flag, the analog hole and p2p. The first two are nearly a given for the CE and content industries even though they threaten fair use rights of HDTV PVRs (when/if they're developed), but on the third, they agree that 'No single silver bullet solution - technical, legal, legislative, or business - exists to address this thorny form of piracy.' and call for 'Active co-operation and participation of all sectors--content, CE, IT, service providers, and government--will be necessary to develop a range of solutions to this complex problem.'"

morgue-ann writes: "AOL Time-Warner and Intel have released their Joint Statement of Principles in response to recent hearings in the Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committees (Leahy/Hatch & Hollings/Stevens). The cover three issues: the broadcast flag, the analog hole and p2p. The first two are nearly a given for the CE and content industries even though they threaten fair use rights of HDTV PVRs (when/if they're developed), but on the third, they agree that 'No single silver bullet solution - technical, legal, legislative, or business - exists to address this thorny form of piracy.' and call for 'Active co-operation and participation of all sectors--content, CE, IT, service providers, and government--will be necessary to develop a range of solutions to this complex problem.'"

morgue-ann writes: "AOL Time-Warner and Intel have released their Joint Statement of Principles in response to recent hearings in the Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committees (Leahy/Hatch & Hollings/Stevens). The cover three issues: the broadcast flag, the analog hole and p2p. The first two are nearly a given for the CE and content industries even though they threaten fair use rights of HDTV PVRs (when/if they're developed), but on the third, they agree that 'No single silver bullet solution - technical, legal, legislative, or business - exists to address this thorny form of piracy.' and call for 'Active co-operation and participation of all sectors--content, CE, IT, service providers, and government--will be necessary to develop a range of solutions to this complex problem.'"

morgue-ann writes: "AOL Time-Warner and Intel have released their Joint Statement of Principles in response to recent hearings in the Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committees (Leahy/Hatch & Hollings/Stevens). The cover three issues: the broadcast flag, the analog hole and p2p. The first two are nearly a given for the CE and content industries even though they threaten fair use rights of HDTV PVRs (when/if they're developed), but on the third, they agree that 'No single silver bullet solution - technical, legal, legislative, or business - exists to address this thorny form of piracy.' and call for 'Active co-operation and participation of all sectors--content, CE, IT, service providers, and government--will be necessary to develop a range of solutions to this complex problem.'"

morgue-ann writes: "AOL Time-Warner and Intel have released their Joint Statement of Principles in response to recent hearings in the Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committees (Leahy/Hatch & Hollings/Stevens). The cover three issues: the broadcast flag, the analog hole and p2p. The first two are nearly a given for the CE and content industries even though they threaten fair use rights of HDTV PVRs (when/if they're developed), but on the third, they agree that 'No single silver bullet solution - technical, legal, legislative, or business - exists to address this thorny form of piracy.' and call for 'Active co-operation and participation of all sectors--content, CE, IT, service providers, and government--will be necessary to develop a range of solutions to this complex problem.'"

morgue-ann writes: "AOL Time-Warner and Intel have released their Joint Statement of Principles in response to recent hearings in the Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committees (Leahy/Hatch & Hollings/Stevens). The cover three issues: the broadcast flag, the analog hole and p2p. The first two are nearly a given for the CE and content industries even though they threaten fair use rights of HDTV PVRs (when/if they're developed), but on the third, they agree that 'No single silver bullet solution - technical, legal, legislative, or business - exists to address this thorny form of piracy.' and call for 'Active co-operation and participation of all sectors--content, CE, IT, service providers, and government--will be necessary to develop a range of solutions to this complex problem.'"

morgue-ann writes: "AOL Time-Warner and Intel have released their Joint Statement of Principles in response to recent hearings in the Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committees (Leahy/Hatch & Hollings/Stevens). The cover three issues: the broadcast flag, the analog hole and p2p. The first two are nearly a given for the CE and content industries even though they threaten fair use rights of HDTV PVRs (when/if they're developed), but on the third, they agree that 'No single silver bullet solution - technical, legal, legislative, or business - exists to address this thorny form of piracy.' and call for 'Active co-operation and participation of all sectors--content, CE, IT, service providers, and government--will be necessary to develop a range of solutions to this complex problem.'"

morgue-ann writes: "AOL Time-Warner and Intel have released their Joint Statement of Principles in response to recent hearings in the Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committees (Leahy/Hatch & Hollings/Stevens). The cover three issues: the broadcast flag, the analog hole and p2p. The first two are nearly a given for the CE and content industries even though they threaten fair use rights of HDTV PVRs (when/if they're developed), but on the third, they agree that 'No single silver bullet solution - technical, legal, legislative, or business - exists to address this thorny form of piracy.' and call for 'Active co-operation and participation of all sectors--content, CE, IT, service providers, and government--will be necessary to develop a range of solutions to this complex problem.'"

jayed_99 writes: "The US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today about the issues surrounding DRM and the SSSCA. They have a link on their front page that requests comments. Here's a bit of the relevant text: 'If you have comments on these issues that you wish to share with the Committee and with other stakeholders, please email usercomments@judiciary.senate.gov We ask that comments not be sent anonymously, so that if we need to edit comments for public display or request clarification, we are able to contact the author. In addition, for obvious reasons, we request that e-mail submissions themselves avoid copyright infringement, defamation, or other unlawful content.' (You people from Wisconsin, pay attention! Both of your Senators are on the committee)."

jayed_99 writes: "The US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today about the issues surrounding DRM and the SSSCA. They have a link on their front page that requests comments. Here's a bit of the relevant text: 'If you have comments on these issues that you wish to share with the Committee and with other stakeholders, please email usercomments@judiciary.senate.gov We ask that comments not be sent anonymously, so that if we need to edit comments for public display or request clarification, we are able to contact the author. In addition, for obvious reasons, we request that e-mail submissions themselves avoid copyright infringement, defamation, or other unlawful content.' (You people from Wisconsin, pay attention! Both of your Senators are on the committee)."

jayed_99 writes: "The US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today about the issues surrounding DRM and the SSSCA. They have a link on their front page that requests comments. Here's a bit of the relevant text: 'If you have comments on these issues that you wish to share with the Committee and with other stakeholders, please email usercomments@judiciary.senate.gov We ask that comments not be sent anonymously, so that if we need to edit comments for public display or request clarification, we are able to contact the author. In addition, for obvious reasons, we request that e-mail submissions themselves avoid copyright infringement, defamation, or other unlawful content.' (You people from Wisconsin, pay attention! Both of your Senators are on the committee)."

jayed_99 writes: "The US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today about the issues surrounding DRM and the SSSCA. They have a link on their front page that requests comments. Here's a bit of the relevant text: 'If you have comments on these issues that you wish to share with the Committee and with other stakeholders, please email usercomments@judiciary.senate.gov We ask that comments not be sent anonymously, so that if we need to edit comments for public display or request clarification, we are able to contact the author. In addition, for obvious reasons, we request that e-mail submissions themselves avoid copyright infringement, defamation, or other unlawful content.' (You people from Wisconsin, pay attention! Both of your Senators are on the committee)."

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

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

Concerned Citizen writes "Both the EFF and WIAFLW are reporting that the "Senate Commerce Committee's hearings on the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA or DMCA-2) which had been originally schedule for today (Oct. 25, 2001) have been postponed due to mounting opposition, particularly from those in the tech community." Senator Fritz Hollings has yet to reschedule a hearing (it's likely that he won't), and has also indicated that he would consider modifying the bill."

Concerned Citizen writes "Both the EFF and WIAFLW are reporting that the "Senate Commerce Committee's hearings on the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA or DMCA-2) which had been originally schedule for today (Oct. 25, 2001) have been postponed due to mounting opposition, particularly from those in the tech community." Senator Fritz Hollings has yet to reschedule a hearing (it's likely that he won't), and has also indicated that he would consider modifying the bill."

Saratoga C++ writes: "Today (Oct 25) was the day that the US Senate voted on if to pass H.R. 3162, the anti-terrorism law. I have the roll call for today from the Senate. The only person with a "Nay" vote was Russ Feingold (D-WI). Thanks Russ. The final turn out was Yes: 98, No: 1, No Vote: 1."

Saratoga C++ writes: "Today (Oct 25) was the day that the US Senate voted on if to pass H.R. 3162, the anti-terrorism law. I have the roll call for today from the Senate. The only person with a "Nay" vote was Russ Feingold (D-WI). Thanks Russ. The final turn out was Yes: 98, No: 1, No Vote: 1."

Saratoga C++ writes: "Today (Oct 25) was the day that the US Senate voted on if to pass H.R. 3162, the anti-terrorism law. I have the roll call for today from the Senate. The only person with a "Nay" vote was Russ Feingold (D-WI). Thanks Russ. The final turn out was Yes: 98, No: 1, No Vote: 1."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declan McCullagh writes: "If you thought the DMCA was a nightmare, wait 'til you find out what Congress is planning this fall. The sequel is called the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act," and it requires PCs and consumer electronic devices to support "certified security technologies" to be approved by the Commerce Department. Backers of the SSSCA include Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.), who heads the powerful Senate Commerce committee, and, reportedly, Disney. Wired News has a report, and I've placed the SSSCA draft text (new! more criminal penalties!) online here. D'ya think that maybe Congress doesn't like OSS very much?" This is only a draft, not even introduced as a bill yet, but it sends chills down my spine - this is the big one. If passed, it would require all personal computers to have digital rights management built in, under penalty of law.

Declan McCullagh writes: "If you thought the DMCA was a nightmare, wait 'til you find out what Congress is planning this fall. The sequel is called the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act," and it requires PCs and consumer electronic devices to support "certified security technologies" to be approved by the Commerce Department. Backers of the SSSCA include Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.), who heads the powerful Senate Commerce committee, and, reportedly, Disney. Wired News has a report, and I've placed the SSSCA draft text (new! more criminal penalties!) online here. D'ya think that maybe Congress doesn't like OSS very much?" This is only a draft, not even introduced as a bill yet, but it sends chills down my spine - this is the big one. If passed, it would require all personal computers to have digital rights management built in, under penalty of law.

David Carver writes: "I heard about this on a local news station this morning: The Financial Modernization Act, passed in 1999, allows financial institutions to share your personal financial information to other institutions without your explicit permission. They have been required by law to inform you of your rights by July 1st. The good news is that you can choose to opt out of this, but you must notify, in writing, any bank, credit card company, etc. with which you have an account. A sample opt-out letter, courtesy of Ralph Nader, is available at privacyrightsnow.com."

michael: If you check around there have been a lot of news stories written about this law. Until this law was passed, there were laws in place that separated banks from the insurance and securities industries. That is, your bank couldn't also be your stock broker or your insurance company. The main law creating this situation was called the Glass-Steagall Act, and was passed in 1933 right in the middle of the Great Depression. Speculation in the stock market by banks was a major cause of the stock market crash of 1929, and the goal of the law was to prevent another such crash. Scores of banks failed when their stock investments turned sour at the same time as depositors wanted their money out. When these three industries are combined into single corporate entities, society is putting all of its financial eggs into one basket - a crashing stock market leads to rising insurance claims and makes the bank insolvent precisely at the time that it needs to have lots of cash on hand. We as a society have learned this lesson, and due to this law, sometime in the future we will learn it again.

Fast-forward to the present. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 got rid of most of those restrictions, freeing banks and securities firms and insurance firms to consolidate. Gramm, Leach and Bliley are three Republican Congressmen who have all received huge bribes (sometimes called campaign contributions) from the banking industry. Essentially, like the 1996 telecommunications law which paved the way for the return of Ma Bell (the seven Baby Bells have merged into four, while stifling all possible competition in any way possible), this law will eventually result in a financial services industry dominated by a very few mega-institutions. The law was written to override not only the old Federal law, but also state laws which would have prohibited these mergers. It was strongly supported by the Republicans and lightly supported by the Democrats, after massive lobbying from the banking and financial industries. The securities firms and insurance firms loved this, because "having a lot of money in your bank account" is a good indicator that you'd be willing to invest in the stock market, and now they can simply purchase the data from your bank, or better yet, merge with it, to get access. The banks loved it because insurance and securities represented new revenue streams that were previously untapped. Additionally, it allows all sorts of conflicts of interest - advising customers to buy stock in company A while the bank itself is selling it, etc. etc.

Anyway, one of the weak additions to the bill insisted on by Clinton were the provisions affecting privacy. In a nutshell:

• Banks can share any and all information about your financial doings with any corporation that they have a business relationship with or are otherwise associated with. They can sell anything they know about you - Social Security numbers, account numbers, who you write checks to, what you buy with your credit card, etc. A Washington Post column sums it up nicely.
• You can't opt-out of that.
• Banks can also share any and all information about your financial doings with anyone else.
• You can opt-out of that.
• But the business relationship mentioned at the start could be something like "We are in business with company X for the purpose of selling your financial information", so the exception totally swallows the rule.
• Ha-ha, you lose.

So now the deadline is approaching, and lots of financial institutions are sending out privacy notices as required by law. Some small percent of institutions are sending out opt-out notifications, allowing you to "opt-out". I believe that most institutions are not sending opt-out notices, because frankly, they don't need to - any use of your financial data can be covered under the no-opt-out-required if the bank sets it up properly. None of the several institutions I do business with provided me with any opportunity to opt-out, although all warned me that they would sell my financial information. Here's a direct quote from one:

"We do not share any personal information about you or our former members with third parties except as permitted or required by law, and as necessary for business purposes."

So they share my information "as permitted by law", for any business purpose. Translation: they promise not to violate the law, and to attempt to make money. Wow, what an incredible commitment to privacy. Of course, you might not get to this sentence if you only read the beginning of the notice, which starts out "[Bank] is committed to protecting the privacy of your personal information."

My guess is that very few of these notices contain any meaningful commitment to privacy. Read them carefully. If you get an opt-out notice, do it - it won't have any effect on what actually happens to information about your bank account, credit history, credit card purchases, etc., but the industry is using the low return rate of opt-out notices as a statement that customers don't care about privacy (when in fact, most people probably just throw away these tiny-print legalese forms). I don't really have any other advice - I very much doubt that you'll be able to locate any banking institution that would be reasonably convenient for you to deal with that will in any way respect your privacy.

David Carver writes: "I heard about this on a local news station this morning: The Financial Modernization Act, passed in 1999, allows financial institutions to share your personal financial information to other institutions without your explicit permission. They have been required by law to inform you of your rights by July 1st. The good news is that you can choose to opt out of this, but you must notify, in writing, any bank, credit card company, etc. with which you have an account. A sample opt-out letter, courtesy of Ralph Nader, is available at privacyrightsnow.com."

michael: If you check around there have been a lot of news stories written about this law. Until this law was passed, there were laws in place that separated banks from the insurance and securities industries. That is, your bank couldn't also be your stock broker or your insurance company. The main law creating this situation was called the Glass-Steagall Act, and was passed in 1933 right in the middle of the Great Depression. Speculation in the stock market by banks was a major cause of the stock market crash of 1929, and the goal of the law was to prevent another such crash. Scores of banks failed when their stock investments turned sour at the same time as depositors wanted their money out. When these three industries are combined into single corporate entities, society is putting all of its financial eggs into one basket - a crashing stock market leads to rising insurance claims and makes the bank insolvent precisely at the time that it needs to have lots of cash on hand. We as a society have learned this lesson, and due to this law, sometime in the future we will learn it again.

Fast-forward to the present. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 got rid of most of those restrictions, freeing banks and securities firms and insurance firms to consolidate. Gramm, Leach and Bliley are three Republican Congressmen who have all received huge bribes (sometimes called campaign contributions) from the banking industry. Essentially, like the 1996 telecommunications law which paved the way for the return of Ma Bell (the seven Baby Bells have merged into four, while stifling all possible competition in any way possible), this law will eventually result in a financial services industry dominated by a very few mega-institutions. The law was written to override not only the old Federal law, but also state laws which would have prohibited these mergers. It was strongly supported by the Republicans and lightly supported by the Democrats, after massive lobbying from the banking and financial industries. The securities firms and insurance firms loved this, because "having a lot of money in your bank account" is a good indicator that you'd be willing to invest in the stock market, and now they can simply purchase the data from your bank, or better yet, merge with it, to get access. The banks loved it because insurance and securities represented new revenue streams that were previously untapped. Additionally, it allows all sorts of conflicts of interest - advising customers to buy stock in company A while the bank itself is selling it, etc. etc.

Anyway, one of the weak additions to the bill insisted on by Clinton were the provisions affecting privacy. In a nutshell:

• Banks can share any and all information about your financial doings with any corporation that they have a business relationship with or are otherwise associated with. They can sell anything they know about you - Social Security numbers, account numbers, who you write checks to, what you buy with your credit card, etc. A Washington Post column sums it up nicely.
• You can't opt-out of that.
• Banks can also share any and all information about your financial doings with anyone else.
• You can opt-out of that.
• But the business relationship mentioned at the start could be something like "We are in business with company X for the purpose of selling your financial information", so the exception totally swallows the rule.
• Ha-ha, you lose.

So now the deadline is approaching, and lots of financial institutions are sending out privacy notices as required by law. Some small percent of institutions are sending out opt-out notifications, allowing you to "opt-out". I believe that most institutions are not sending opt-out notices, because frankly, they don't need to - any use of your financial data can be covered under the no-opt-out-required if the bank sets it up properly. None of the several institutions I do business with provided me with any opportunity to opt-out, although all warned me that they would sell my financial information. Here's a direct quote from one:

"We do not share any personal information about you or our former members with third parties except as permitted or required by law, and as necessary for business purposes."

So they share my information "as permitted by law", for any business purpose. Translation: they promise not to violate the law, and to attempt to make money. Wow, what an incredible commitment to privacy. Of course, you might not get to this sentence if you only read the beginning of the notice, which starts out "[Bank] is committed to protecting the privacy of your personal information."

My guess is that very few of these notices contain any meaningful commitment to privacy. Read them carefully. If you get an opt-out notice, do it - it won't have any effect on what actually happens to information about your bank account, credit history, credit card purchases, etc., but the industry is using the low return rate of opt-out notices as a statement that customers don't care about privacy (when in fact, most people probably just throw away these tiny-print legalese forms). I don't really have any other advice - I very much doubt that you'll be able to locate any banking institution that would be reasonably convenient for you to deal with that will in any way respect your privacy.