Slashdot Mirror

I think that you'll find that there is very very little love lost for scientology (I refuse to capitalize it; churches and religions don't have "trade secrets", IMO) on Slashdot. The people involved with the running of the "church" of scientology have been heavy handed in the extreme when it comes to things near and dear to the Slashdot readership. It is a hot-button topic, to be sure. Your "church" is not seen in a very positive light by those that come here. One could therefore argue that, by extension, this means that a healthy percentage of the online "geek" community harbors negative feelings towards your "church". So it's likely that you might get a little heat if you bring up scientology on Slashdot.

The reason you might not be terribly welcome here in most people's minds is because, for good or ill, they cannot separate what your "church" does with what you say -- when you mention scientology. If you don't bother mentioning it, it's probable that nobody will like or dislike you anymore than they would any other person here. It's not a First Amendment issue so much as a "cultural" thing. I certainly wouldn't start yelling about my PETA membership at the annual Meat Packers Association convention meeting unless I wanted to start a shouting match. Perhaps you feel differently. I don't know. It's a free country.

Whatever my personal feelings are about scientology, I really don't care one way or the other about your religious beliefs (especially if they have no bearing on the conversation at hand). To each his own, I say; I certainly don't bother mentioning that I'm an agnostic Libertarian every time I post here. I'm just trying to give out a little friendly, free advice: you'd do well to not bring up your religion in this forum unless you're participating in a discussion about religion. Assuming you don't want your conversation degenerating into a flamefest, that is.

-B

>Who's the bigger idiot: The one who is placed in a position of making decisions for a corporation, or the one who has posted over 1600 slashdot comments?

I don't know, why don't you tell me?

I think this should be treated the same as any invitation to submit questions to an interviewee.

MS, in this case.

It's disappointing to see the flamage herein. Yep, Slashdot may be homogenizing, as some have asserted - becoming bland, grey, doubleplusungood sameness in all directions. Personified by Prolific Puking Proselytizing Punks!?!

Yet ---- on the flip side, there are too many superficial questions asked, which by their phrasing or their supposed "subtlety" or "indirection" will somehow be "sprung" upon the erstwhile MS drones standing under the bright lights.

Sigh.

This is a very rare opportunity, if indeed someone will represent "our" interests at this forum (and assuming the chance to speak).

We should be asking all the questions that have come up before, but that have not yet been answered: in Salon by Bruce Perens ('Perens is convinced that Palladium will let Microsoft decide which applications can run on a machine and which are simply too unsafe for public consumption -- such as programs written by open-source hackers. Perens even thinks that's the point of Palladium: "It's designed to kill off open-source development."') and in Dan Gillmor ("Microsoft has launched its Palladium initiative, a hardware-software system designed to make computing more secure from viruses and malevolent hackers. Palladium, unfortunately, could also be used by intellectual-property owners to lock down copyrighted materials in ways that would damage users' rights. Critics have also suggested that Palladium could be used to freeze out open source software -- and they make a compelling case.")

A few example questions:

1. What special considerations will be given to corporations whose desktop computers may not have live access to "verification" servers or other real-time "authorization" mechanisms?
2. What will prevent the "considerations" given to corporations from being subverted for use by non-corporate users?
3. From Robert Cringely (here): "Under Palladium as I understand it, the Internet goes from being ours to being theirs. The very data on your hard drive ceases to be yours because it could self-destruct at any time. We'll end up paying rent to use our own data!"

   What is Microsoft's response to Cringely's allegation that data will no longer be "permanently readable" - a characteristic of computing that is taken for granted today?

4. From Digital ID World:

   DIDW: Because Palladium will have an installed public/private key for at least bootstrap purposes...
   Juarez: Which is never revealed to anybody, including you.
   DIDW: But it raises the questions, all the old Clipper Chip issues, of will the government pressure you for key escrow and things like that?
   Juarez: We are talking to the government now, and maybe this is where we get some advantage from having a broad industry initiative. Our fundamental goal is "let's do the right thing." We have pretty strong feelings about what the right thing is on terms of making sure that things are truly anonymous and that key escrow kinds of things don't happen. But there ARE governments in the world, and not just the U.S. Government.
   

   What are Microsoft's present commitments to governments regarding key escrow? U.S.? England? France? Germany? Afghanistan? Iraq/Iran?

5. From InternetNews.com: "The big question from everyone is," says Elias Levy, a computer-security expert and CTO of Security Focus, "who is going to have control - is it going to be in the hands of the user or Microsoft?"
6. From InternetNews.com: "But by integrating Palladium with its Windows operating system (OS), Microsoft is taking another strike at Linux users. Juarez won't rule out Palladium ever being available for alternative operating systems, but it won't be initially."

   What is Microsoft's position today on this issue?

7. As noted in BSDVault, a patch to MS Media Player to address security bulletin MS02-032 includes the following EULA language:

   * Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.

   Is this DRM part of (or related to) Palladium? In any event, what recourse will users have when (if) their existing software ceases to function as a result of these new "features"?

Search Google, read all the material, find the unanswered questions - and it won't matter that Microsoft sees this slashdot thread. Ask the questions that MS knows about, but has not been able or willing to answer...

Tivo has a heads up over Replay because it had more marketing dollars (by initially charging their customers a monthly or one time fee). Tivo is also owned by Phillips.

Tivo willfully shares your Tivo data with others.

Tivo has violated their privacy agreement with you a number of times. They changed their privacy policy to allow them to share your data without notifying their customers. The link they provided in their manual still made you click through on about 3 or 4 links before actually getting to the policy. I know of many Tivo owners who were concerned about their privacy were in an absolute uproar about this.

Replay TV refused to share your private information and were almost forced to do so. They paid lawyers to keep my information to themselves.

Though Replay now charges a monthly fee like Tivo on NEW units, I have a unit that did not have this charge. I paid $300 for a 20 hour Replay TV and have never spent a dime since.

Replay TV has allowed for me to access my Replay TV from anywhere with an internet connection. I have heard that Tivo has also adopted this. Not sure though.

Replay TV gave me the 30 second skip so that I can easily bypass commercials. I believe Tivo has also snagged this feature as well?

One thing that Tivo has over Replay is that it was the first to let you can hack it to add larger drives. (1, 2, 3)
ReplayTV does now too. (1, 2) Tivo has historically been easier to do so, but I'm not sure about these days.

Overall, features on both are very similar, though the methodology to record shows is a little different. Replay gives you more pause time as it isn't just recording things it THINKS you MIGHT like. Replay makes you be specific about what you want to record, though they have theme recording channels. Tivo is programed to make certain assumptions about what you want it to record in addition to what you specifically specify.

I know folks who own one or the other. Regardless of brand, they are both extremely happy with their new options for watching TV. For those of you who say, I barely watch TV, its likely because you think there's too much crap on. There is, but with one of these units, you will only be watching exactly what you want, without commercials. Iron Chef, Battlebots, Simpsons (I have archived almost 2/3s of all episodes), Southpark, West Wing, 24, shows for your kids/infants (ON DEMAND!!!) and both can wait for shows that aren't even in the programming guide yet.

Though Tivo is on better financial ground right now, Replay TV isn't and hasn't historically been as shady about your privacy.

Bottom, line, do the math and find yourself the best deal. Even if one or both went out of business, we'd make a hack to grab the programing information anyway.

Has there been much response to your column identifying decentralization and energy independence as a critical national security issues?

A few blogs try to go the informative rant. My blog tries that and stays the course on one, and only one topic.

I take other blogs with a grain of salt. Some I read for other professional/user perspective (such as Doc Searls or the venerable Dan Gillmor. I enjoy the casual thoughts from Meg, a cofounder of the Blogger blogsite, and, just for kicks and grins, read sites with attitude like Up Yours, which chronicles the happiness of a lovely mom in a twisted little world.

The real problem with blogs isn't blogs itself. That's like blaming the gun for the shooting of a person. The problem is that most people can't string a simple sentence together, which makes reading some sites a pain.

On the up side, people who can't write may find blogging to be theraputic--if they can stand the mail flames.

I personally like how I plug my own blog with my sig, like so:

I'd really LIKE to believe that Apple is taking a conscious and principled stand against digital restrictions management, as suggested in your article here.

Your article is, however, basically speculative.

Do you have any evidence that Apple really has an anti-DRM corporate strategy? Gateway has issued a limited but significant public statement of support for fair-use rights. Do you have any ideas why Apple has not done anything like this?

SiliconValley.com has audio of one of their reporter's interviews with Danger CEO Andy Rubin. Interesting stuff...

And if you still believe that you are hurting M$ by buying an eggsbox for running Linux, have a look at this On Thursday, Microsoft once again beat the analysts' estimates

I think what should be the focus here is that Intel is planning on hitting the 90nm scale. Hell the 130nm scale has barely been accepted by all chip manufacturers, and it's already becoming obselete. The chip process technology is the thing that should really be the focus here. This is an article related to this. Essentially Intel will be using Silicon Germanium like IBM. According to Intel, this will not only mean a smaller scale production, but will also produce a chip that can tolerate higher frequencies. Here is another article relating to this: click

Additional coverage:

CNN

SiliconValley

Yahoo

According to the Merc:
Pavni Diwanji made a small fortune starting and selling a tech company for $120 million during the boom years. Then she had a child.

Now she's going back to work -- to start a new company. But this time, she's doing it at one of the most depressing times in Silicon Valley technology start-up history.

Decent article came out this weekend here about college webcasting troubles. Lot's of college stations are gonna fold up shop (the webcasting part at least) because of this it looks like.

I remember when the rates were being discussed on NPR with a recording industry exec there, he flat out stated that the rates being proposed would only be a guideline and that they would gladly negotiate lower fees or possibly drop them all together for non profits (and also even commercial stations who played the music they "want promoted"). It sure sounds like they forgot all about that part now that the fees are set doesn't it?

I am sure this is the start of a huge slew of lawsuits. UserFriendly had a strip about this on Sunday. You can view it here. It raises an interesting point. The comic implies that anyone with a big enough footprint can ignore/swat the RIAA if they want.

That said, I think that the banning of the RIAA from networks is a start. Now they need to ban the spoofers and companies like MediaDefender who spend all of their bandwidth downloading files from YOUR computer to keep other people off.

Here's a reference to an article talking about this overbuilt capacity. I know I wasn't imagining it.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

This assumes that the internet is going to be non-vulnerable.

As is pointed out here the policy makers are remaking the rules by changing the protocols and the equipment.

Become active (however you can) or loose your rights.

An actual link to the story about late Gene Kan might have nicer than just mentioning how no one has mentioned it. It took literally five seconds with Google and wasn't even vitrol-powered.

I don't think this is terribly off-topic, as Gnutella is one of the reasons we're at this story, after all.

I wouldn't chalk it up to the usual Slashdot incompetence. If you read the obituary, it mentions that Kan's anus had been viciously ravaged, and that every CD he owned by The Who was missing. These clues suggest involvement by Slashdot editor CmdrTaco. Don't expect to see this posted on Slashdot anytime soon.

article here

>'A version of Mandrake Linux dedicated to these powerful
>64-bit processors can certainly accelerate MandrakeSoft's
>growing adoption in the Linux corporate market' said
>Jacques Le Marois, CEO of MandrakeSoft.

*swat* Bad CEO! Bad, bad! AMD is not doing very well in the corporate market. PHBs just don't like it. Sure, the grunts that take care of the machines like it, but they (we) just don't have the pull when it comes to writing a check. Imagine this conversation:

Me:"Hey boss, if we went with Corp_PC-A instead of Corp_PC-B, we would save about $200 per computer!"
Boss:"Really? What's the difference between the two?"
Me:"Corp_PC-B uses an AMD processor instead of an Intel."
Boss:"Whoa, now. The processor is pretty important, right? I don't think that we want to skimp there. We better 'go long' on the processor and trim the fat on memory and disk space. Oh, and stick a Trident video card in there for good measure! Silly hacker, what do you know about corporate responsibility. Go fix me turkey pot pie!"

OK, a little creative leeway. The point is that Intel has the aura of a rock-solid performer, while AMD has a hacker/gamer hippie case-modder feel.

Besides, AMD lost it's underdog luster to me when they struck a deal with Microsoft to testify on their behalf for an endorsement.

Matthew
In or near St. Louis? Hire me

Remember last April when Andreessen said "If a computer can see it, display it and play it -- it can copy it,..."

Article found here.

As Dan Briklin says "With ever changing technology, in order to preserve many works we will need to constantly move them ahead, copying them to each new media form before the previous one becomes obsolete. Also, as we create new media, we need to preserve the knowledge of the methods of converting from one media to another, so we can still access the old works that have not yet been moved ahead. This is crucial. Without this information, even preserved works could be unreadable.

The most famous example of that type of translation information was an inscribed slab of rock from 196 BC found in 1799. It contained a decree written in Greek that was also written in two forms of Egyptian. It's called the Rosetta Stone. It let scholars finally read ancient works in hieroglyphics that they had physical possession of but whose language had been a mystery for 1,400 years (despite being common for the 3,500 years before being superseded). Cuneiform, a form of writing used by many ancient civilizations, was similarly opaque to scholars until they found a text in multiple languages carved into a cliff -- the Behistun inscription."

try here, or here.

Pop-up blocking. It's not in Netscape 7.0PR1. The other script blocking options are, though, so it was a very conscious decision. However, for Joe Homeuser, Netscape is nice in that they bundle Java and Flash and some other junk that may starting off with Netscape easier. Mozilla is still for the technically advanced (Slashdot?) crowd. Netscape is for the home user who doesn't care, as long as it works. Now, how long until IE7? We all know a higher version means better!

Why on earth would you expect AOL to block advertisements? That's the bread and butter at that failing dump. Poetic. Most customers hate AOL, a slew recent surveys illustrated this. AOL Least Trusted Internet Company in Survey By Lori Enos NewsFactor Network August 23, 2001 . AOL received lower consumer satisfaction ratings than Microsoft, both as an Internet service provider (ISP) and an e-mail provider, according to the Gartner survey.

Posted on Tue, May. 21, 2002 Research survey sees AOL subscriber dissatisfaction ``We have done more than 100 surveys and reports since late 2000 and this survey has the most overwhelming, and negative, response to a company or technology we have ever seen,'' said Michael Shulman, director of research at ChangeWave, an investment and research firm whose clients include hedge funds. About 40 percent said they were clearly dissatisfied with the brand, service and customer support. Some members resented the relatively high cost of $23.90 for the service, the report said.

Okay, so now we know AOL is a bunch of AD WHORES, like the cabal of Slashdot 'editors' and the OSDN / VA Linux scum.

About bundling, that's lame. If you can't figure out how to use flash, you are gay. Java? I have never seen Java not work in Mozilla since the early milestones, so what the fuck are you saying Java bundle?
Slashdot people "technically advanced?" Ha. About as advanced as you are for using a spellchecker or dict.org or proper education in your formative years to spell conscious incorrectly.

About Netscape is for the home user who doesn't care, thank you for letting us all know. Your argument preceding this baseless statement is uninspiring at best. Netscape is what AOL gives the consuming slob public. They don't pick it. If everyone could only pick models of BMW 3 with standard transmissions to drive, you might find some better drivers on the road. But, alas, the consuming public is shiveled cruft, and the lick it up like the bleating sheeple.

Netscape is so gay because its in the middle - stuck between Mozilla and IE. Home users unilaterally use IE. Everyone else uses Mozilla or Opera. The number exist to show this trend. AOL suck in service, sucks in software development. Well, they suck at everything.

And whoever moderating this crap up to +5, what crack do you smoke?

Crack smoke wafts through air
Humorless moderator
Why do you hate me?

Crack smoke wafts though air
Dumb shit moderator
Try to suck less, please

Wrong Answer.
Here is a clue. Actually, the plantiffs wanted to collect the information with unique identifcation for every user. So, don't listen to the media companies, as they lie like a cheap linoleum floor.

Audit: State's Oracle deal was full of mistakes

State Auditor Elaine Howle, calling this audit one of the three or four gravest reviews she has been involved in during her 18 years at the Bureau of State Audits, said the flawed analysis of the contract may have overstated its potential savings by more than $100 million.

I found a reference to this article on Wired, in which Scott Andreessen of Netscape fame attempts to give a clue to the entertainment industry.

You don't know of enough tech sites to claim that "almost every tech site" banded together on something. No one does.

In a dazzling bit of human interface engineering, the people developing the Malaysia smart card (teething problems and all) have used the blank, printable surface of the card to record in human-readable plaintext and bitmap graphics the name, address, DOB, mugshot, etc. of the cardholder. (/wry sarcasm)

So the bouncer in my local club doesn't need a card-reader, since he is the card-reader. (Yes, Ethel, I know how bad that pun was...)

The card readers would be restricted to agencies and organisations that need them, while Joe Bouncer reads the basic data off the front, just like with the existing National Identity Cards.

Err...Dan Gillmor writes for the San Jose Mercury News, and I'd call that rather mainstream. He's been hitting on this issue extensively.

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/b us iness/columnists/dan_gillmor/ejournal/

To me, this seems like the right way to go, provided that the companies don't just ship the product out of country where it becomes someone else's problem.

If we force manufacturers to charge for the full cost of technology, instead of subsidizing them as tax-payers, then they will tend to develop interesting ways to reduce the cost of recycling. This also lets consumers integrate the price of disposal into the purchasing decision, rewarding companies that have cleaner products.

However, if you want that way 31337 toaster with embedded, overclocked, uranium cooled processor, then you are welcome to it -- provided that you pay for the full cost, including its safe recycling.

I prefer to abide by the intent of the original framers of the constitution. Copyright should last only fourteen years.

IMHO, any game made before 1988 should be up for grabs.

I'm trying to think of other good non-mainstream media that would be interested... the problem is, there aren't THAT many. And I'd rather the mainstream media (like ZDNet / CNET, MSNBC, and technical savvy newspapers) have to read the non-mainstream media. (Yes, I know that Dan Gillmor works for the San Jose Mercury News. They're still quite cool in my book.)

What the heck. I'm sending the letter on to them, as well.

I'm trying to think of other good non-mainstream media that would be interested... the problem is, there aren't THAT many. And I'd rather the mainstream media (like ZDNet / CNET, MSNBC, and technical savvy newspapers) have to read the non-mainstream media. (Yes, I know that Dan Gillmor works for the San Jose Mercury News. They're still quite cool in my book.)

What the heck. I'm sending the letter on to them, as well.

They moved the link on us. It's now here.

here

Nope -- he was using the "Hey, kid, the first hit's free" business model:

Q You've offered to provide the database software for free. What about maintenance, tech support and upgrades?

A: I offered the software for free, but in terms of associated services, we have a very wealthy government. I don't think the government has any trouble paying for the labor associated with the software.

The company says it will offer the technology to cable operators at $425 US for a single-TV household, adding $250 to equip a second TV.

The MC will cost about $350 to $450 to manufacture, according to Perlman, while the MCx will run about $50 -- the same or less than advanced digital cable boxes just now coming on the market. Consumers would likely pay much less, or could even get the hardware for free from cable- and satellite-TV providers in exchange for higher monthly fees.

So it will cost more than an Xbox but not play Xbox games.

It is closer to a barebones computer with large hard drive in price - because that what it's components are from. Hopefully they have removed some of the standard PC problems though. E.g., boot faster, tolerant of power-offs and less power hungry.

Be sure to read the last paragraph from the SJ Mercury News article:

The loudest voice is Microsoft, Perlman's former employer -- he worked at the company for two years after the WebTV acquisition, leaving in frustration with Microsoft's slow pace and insistence on cramming a version of its Windows computer software into TV-based devices. Moxi uses the Linux operating system and Macromedia Flash animation software.

``We couldn't do the things we are doing with Windows XP,'' Perlman said, referring to the most recent version of Microsoft's flagship operating system. ``The best broadband (home) networks out there will be the ones that don't use Microsoft technology.''

You can read up on it at this site for example.

Hmm, in fact this ran that article.

I don't think Stanford actually filed a lawsuit, but they where pretty close.

Actually:
1. Microsoft currently dominates the education market. Their share is currently 23% according to this story.
2. Schools will be free to choose what software they want. That's what this is about, right? What schools want? Not what people with technological agendas want.
3. Is pouring money into low-income areas really the best investment for Microsoft? If they wanted to make an "investment" in the education market to increase their share, they would probably target "high-value" segments with students who are likely to be tech savvy or affluent in the future.

The only difference between now, movable press, and a room full of monks is the cost involved. Lower costs made comercial publishing for entertainment possible. Now it's making it a difficult proposition again.

Oh well. Lately, it's the publishers that have enjoyed the proffits at the expense of the artist. Once upon a time someone like Poe could open up a magazine of his own and almost make a living at it. Hemingway, Thompson and others managed to get by. These days, forget it. Warner Brothers vrs. the author of Harry Potter, who's got the profits? When then the comercial rewards have become so poor, why not just give your work away? I've always enjoyed the works of love better anyhow. Hesiod, Homer, Virgil, Dante, RMS.

The danger comes from those who would keep you from sharing to protect their interests. This has happened before, but never on such a wide scale as popular culture. In the west, the church has fought specific puclications on natural philosophy and governments have fought political tracts. Today, however, many people can only hum tunes sold to them by five music publishers, have images placed into their heads by four different media giants, and so their very hopes and dreams forged by a small number of corporate interests. As these attack all forms of knowledge trasmision, including Public Libraries, private devices even private thoughts, and we might do best to avoid helping those who would tax us. Why not preferentially use free works?

He even sent her the Web address where she could find a photo of his penis. It was indeed his, he said in court.

Brett Glass wins again. Babality!

Political News from Wired News - Cybercrime Treaty Finally Ready. After four years of haggling over the language, several countries including the United States will sign a cybercrime treaty.

WildernessCoast.org - Cybercrime Treaty Bibliography -- By Date. A wide collection of links that talk about the Cybercrime Treaty Same info sorted by title.

Council of Europe - Convention on Cybercrime.

The Convention on Cybercrime has been adopted by the Committee of Ministers during its 109th Session, on 8 November 2001 and will be opened for signature, in Budapest, on 23 November 2001.

The Convention will be the first international treaty on crimes committed via the Internet and other computer networks, dealing particularly with infringements of copyright, computer-related fraud, child pornography and violations of network security. It also contains a series of powers and procedures such as the search of computer networks and interception.

Its main objective, set out in the preamble, is to pursue a common criminal policy aimed at the protection of society against cybercrime, especially by adopting appropriate legislation and fostering international co-operation.

The Convention is the product of four years of work by Council of Europe experts, but also by the United States, Canada, Japan and other countries which are not members of the organisation.

It will be supplemented by an additional protocol making any publication of racist and xenophobic propaganda via computer networks a criminal offence.

[ ... ]

But Fred Eisner, a consultant for the Dutch government and private companies, said the draft made unfair demands on Internet service providers by asking them to track Web users' online movements.

"This draft convention lacks balance," Eisner told the assembly. "The convention explicitly gives much more power to law enforcement agencies and it has no system of checks and balances."

Bruce McConnell, president of McConnell International, a Washington-based consulting firm, said the treaty should be more forceful in protecting the privacy of Web users who are already worried about being spied on.

"There is concern that the powers of surveillance ... are not balanced by comparable protections for individuals' privacy," he said.

Maybe you trust the law-enforcement chiefs in D.C. to do the right thing. But here's the catch. The same new powers given to the United States will also handed over to Bulgaria, Romania, Azerbaijan, and other Council of Europe nations that-although officially democratic now-don't have a strong traditions of checks and balances on police power.

Do you want investigators rummaging around your clients' computer systems on warrants issued by former Soviet bloc nations?

That's the prospect that has pushed AT&T Corporation and other high-technology companies into feverishly trying to stop or at least soften the treaty. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Information Technology Association of America also oppose it.

Stewart Baker is one of the chief lobbyists for the treaty opponents. As a former general counsel of the National Security Agency and recipient of the Department of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, he's got street cred on these issues in corporate America.

What worries Baker and his colleagues? Consider the following hypothetical: A Los Angeles screenwriter corresponds by e-mail with a neo-Nazi in Germany while researching a script. Shortly after, he finds federal agents examining the files on his home computer. The agents also visit America Online Inc. to retrieve records of the screenwriter's AOL usage.

The agents are fulfilling a warrant issued by German authorities allowing them to search for Nazi propaganda. Such material is unlawful in Germany but not in the U.S. They framed their warrant in terms of "suspected terrorist activity."

LAW.com (requires cookies) - International Treaty on Cybercrime Poses Burden on High-Tech Companies.

Maybe you're a civil libertarian, and maybe you're not. Maybe you worry about how the United States exercises its vast investigative and prosecutorial powers, and maybe you don't.

But if you counsel U.S. corporations on computer-related issues, you should be concerned about a new proposed treaty known as the "Convention on Cybercrime." The Council of Europe, a 43-nation public body created to promote democracy and the rule of law, is nominally drafting the treaty. Curiously, however, the primary architect is the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation are using a foreign forum to create an international law-enforcement regime that favors the interests of the feds over those of ordinary citizens and businesses. Their goal is to make it easier to get evidence from abroad and to extradite and prosecute foreign nationals for certain kinds of crimes.

Maybe you trust the law-enforcement chiefs in D.C. to do the right thing. But here's the catch. The same new powers given to the United States will also be handed over to Bulgaria, Romania, Azerbaijan, and other Council of Europe nations that -- although officially democratic now -- don't have a strong tradition of checks and balances on police power.

[ ... ]

Stewart Baker, a partner at Washington, D.C.'s Steptoe & Johnson, is one of the chief lobbyists for the treaty's opponents. As a former general counsel of the National Security Agency and recipient of the U.S. Department of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, he's got street credentials on these issues in corporate America.

Slashdot | Implications Of The International Cybercrime Treaty.

SiliconValley.com part of San Jose Mercury News - Pioneer cybercrime pact tightens privacy rules.

MS-NBC - Pioneer cybercrime pact tightens privacy rules. PARIS, May 25 -- Stiff criticism from the EU and pressure groups has prompted drafters of the world's first treaty against cybercrime to tighten provisions protecting privacy online, the final text showed Friday.

[ ... ]

Against EU objections, it also limits the right of a country to reject a request from abroad to store and hand over data in potential crime cases if the requesting country thinks it could be misused.

The text says states should make sure that systems operators or other people who know how to use a certain system can be ordered to cooperate in any such a cyberprobe.

PARIS (Reuters) - Stiff criticism from the EU and pressure groups has prompted drafters of the world's first treaty against cybercrime to tighten provisions protecting privacy online, the final text showed on Friday.

The Council of Europe, a 43-state human rights watchdog, has amended the text to ensure police respect privacy rights when they follow digital trails to fight online crimes such as hacking, spreading viruses, using stolen credit card numbers or defrauding banks.

''The guarantees in the treaty have been reinforced,'' Peter Csonka, deputy head of the economic crime division at the Council's headquarters in Strasbourg, told Reuters after the Council posted the final text -- version 27 -- on its Web site.

But the treaty, which has aroused heated debate in cyberspace since its draft text became public last year, ignored calls by Internet service providers (ISPs) for fewer costly requirements on preserving data that could be linked to a crime.

It still accorded police wide powers to chase suspected cybercriminals -- powers some critics say go beyond what is legal in some Council member states or in observer countries like the United States, Canada and Japan due to sign the treaty.

ZDNet - Internet founder worried over EU cybercrime plans.

BRUSSELS --Vint Cerf, a founding father of today's Internet, said on Thursday that European Union plans for new rules to fight crime on the Web risked clashing with existing EU privacy regulations.

Cerf, who helped develop the Internet in the early 70s shortly after graduating from Stanford University and now works for WorldCom, said more secure network systems were an immediate priority for the successful development of the ubiquitous Web.

He told Reuters in an interview that Internet traffic should be retained only for billing purposes and was too cumbersome to be stored for police investigations.

Changes to a controversial treaty on cybercrime have done nothing to improve it, say civil liberty campaigners.

Next week, the Council of Europe will vote on the treaty, which has been redrafted 26 times before reaching its final version late in May.

The most recent changes were made to take into account the fears of civil liberty and privacy campaigners. But cyber-rights groups say the latest changes are purely cosmetic and have not diluted what they describe as its most pernicious sections.

The groups say that, if adopted in its current form, the treaty could lead to changes in legislation that would stifle rights to privacy and do little to curb the activities of law enforcement agencies.

[ ... ]

In December 2000, 23 organisations, banding together under the banner of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC), signed a letter condemning the 25th draft of the treaty as "appalling", and warned that it handed law enforcement agencies sweeping powers to snoop and could seriously erode online privacy.

Now, three civil liberty groups, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International, have sent another letter to the Council of Europe outlining their "continuing concerns" over the wording of the treaty and saying that their fears have not been laid to rest.

The letter chastises the Council of Europe for refusing to open up the redrafting debates to non-governmental organisations and for, it says, ignoring the human rights and privacy concerns of organisations such as the GILC.

It goes on to say that the original criticisms still stand, and that the treaty does not pay enough attention to existing laws which safeguard human rights. It says the treaty's recommendations on protecting privacy are vague and do not go far enough.

IT industry gurus have branded the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime 'foolish, unworkable and a legal con trick'.

The controversial treaty provides a blanket legislation to deal with all forms of internet crime from hacking to online pornography.

Caspar Bowden, director of internet think-tank FIPR, said: "The Convention is essentially a legal con trick, drafted in secret by a handful of nameless bureaucrats. It equates the internet - a network of private networks - with 'cyberspace', a metaphor from science fiction.

"By this sleight of hand, the internet is defined as a public space over which law enforcement should be granted unfettered powers of surveillance and extradition," he added.

International policy-makers this week ended a round of talks aimed at setting common rules affecting online trade and commerce, but they made little progress in bridging divisions that threaten to delay the pact.

In the works for nearly a decade, the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments is still almost unknown outside international policy circles. Nevertheless, it could have broad implications for consumers and businesses by setting new rules for online copyrights, free speech and e-commerce--if it is approved.

Opposition to the treaty heated up Wednesday, when a two-week drafting session wrapped up with few concessions to critics, primarily from the United States, who say the pact threatens free speech and could force Internet service providers to become global content police.

"In a nutshell, it will strangle the Internet with a suffocating blanket of overlapping jurisdictional claims, expose every Web page publisher to liabilities for libel, defamation and other speech offenses from virtually any country, (and) effectively strip Internet service providers of protections from litigation over the content they carry," Jamie Love, director of Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), wrote in a report after the meeting.

The treaty is one of several efforts by the global community to grapple with a complicated legal issues on a borderless Web.

Four years ago, nations including the United States signed onto a World Intellectual Property Organization pact to protect copyright in the digital age. And several countries, including the United States, are hammering out the world's first cybercrime treaty, which would provide a standard for fighting online crime.

The Hague treaty differs from those efforts because it would not outline specific laws participants must follow. It's much broader, requiring participants to agree to enforce each others' laws on a variety of topics. As it stands, the treaty would require courts to enforce the commercial laws of the convention's 52 member nations, even if they prohibit actions that are legal under local laws.

BRUSSELS - The blueprint for a global code on Cyber-crime was agreed on in Strasbourg, France, Friday, paving the way for international rules governing online copyright infringement, online fraud, child pornography and hacking.

The 41 members of the Council of Europe (CoE), plus the U.S., Canada and Japan, signed on to a draft convention on cybercrime that is set to be rubber-stamped at ministerial level in September.

"Once adopted, the Convention will be the first international treaty on criminal offenses committed through the use of Internet and other computer networks," the Council of Europe said in a statement.

In September, the Council of Europe approved the Convention on cybercrime, a historic treatise that lays the foundation for legislation allowing for a greater sharing of information between countries to combat the rise of cybercrime.

The treatise isn't binding, but instead would have to be adopted into law by its 43 European member states and five outside countries including the United States, Canada and Japan.

The treaty is broad, covering crimes committed on the Internet such as fraud, child pornography and violations of computer network security. It also sets up global policing procedures for conducting computer searches, interception of e-mails, and extradition of criminal suspects.

More details on the CyberCrime Treaty can be found in the Privacy Digest archives dated September 26,2000, September 27,2000, October 09,2000, October 16,2000, October 18,2000, October 19,2000, October 25,2000, November 14,2000, November 20,2000, November 22,2000 and March 24,2001. This is not all the information at Privacy Digest and other sites so if you want to know more try a search

First and foremost I respect and admire the work Mr. Cox does. And just as I am allowed to respect and admire his work I freely choose to disagree with his overt political opinions regarding the changelogs and the withholding of them from US citizens based on a law he is interpreting to include those changelogs.

Secondly I admit I am not an expert on the DMCA but from what I have read and studied so far his camparison of publishing changelogs -vs- circumvention devices/reverse engineering of document protection is the equivalent to comparing apples -vs- oranges.

In the Skylarov case for example,Mr. Skylarov wrote code to circumvent Adobes ebook encryption scheme.. correct? Then Adobe complained to authorities prompting an investigation and subsequently withdrew its complaint. After investigating it was determined by the FBI that he (Skylarov) violated US law by writing and distributing a "crack", code to circumvent Adobes encryption scheme so that people would not have to purchase content in Adobe ebook format. With his "crack" one could gain the content without paying for it. Whether or not you agree with proprietary formats or not, "stealing" it by way of circumvention is still petty theft in my opinion.

Back to how Cox fits in... Why would Mr. Cox fear his publishing of changelogs would be in violation? I have yet to see on Slashdot or his diary pages or from the main pages at that website a detailed explanation of exactly WHY he feels he needed to do this.

And if I am right it would take a whole lot more than simply publishing the changelogs to violate the DMCA. Correct me if I am wrong, but please show me proof (from sources that are legitamate). Would "NOT" publishing the changelogs feed into the premise that the DMCA is legitamite? Wouldn't the owner of the code have to actually submit a complaint to the authorities to be charged with a violation of the DMCA, similar to what Adobe did to Mr. Skylarov? BTW, since the linux kernel is open source and licensed under the GPL doesn't that in effect offer protection against a DMCA violation for publishing changelogs? I mean does Mr. Cox think Linus or someone else is going to complain to the FBI that he has somehow violated the DMCA by publishing changes he made to the Linux kernel? Why does he NOT worry about the changes to the kernel itself then? The kernel is obviously published all over the world includeing the US and it has his changes in it already doesn't it? That kinda seems oxymoronic in my opinion.

Lastly, the irony is that I have read some comments in this artice and on a previous Slashdot article that suggest the US laws are squashing freedom and the US government is oppressing its people, while Mr. Cox nor anyone else has mentioned anything about the UK's own RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000) from the Crown itself, which is a quite scary peice of legislation and comparable to the DMCA only it has a broader, less defined scope about it. Some links on the RIP are here: World Socialist Website , SiliconValley.com , ZDNet , The Register.

In summary, withholding changelogs sounds like just a little more "America bashing". While I typically choose not to be anti-anyone else my feelings of patriotism are quite high due to recent events in America. My personal view of a non-US citizen withholding information from US citizens/developers is counter productive in repealing the DMCA. Should he feel so strongly about the DMCA then I would invite him to become a US citizen and VOTE to repeal this ignorant law instead of bitching about it from some other place in the world that has its own share of ignorant laws and regulations. Yes, do something...anything but legitimizing the DMCA by withholding changelogs!

Zoom

"California deserves special credit for its stance. Bill Lockyer, the state attorney general, has emerged as the most important public official in America when it comes to holding back the Microsoft tide."

You don't? Are you sure?

A google later, we have: IBM is launching its lowest-priced system, featuring eight processors, at $450,000. ... he new IBM servers have a Power4 processor that contains two processors, a system switch, a large memory and input/output technology -- a design that enables the server to conserve energy and outperform servers that have twice as many processors, IBM said.

Note that this is the lowest-priced system.

t.

In this case you are right, but earlier he has been slightly more bitchy. Like this one, where Linus respons to Mundie which cracked me up:

"I'd rather listen to Newton than to Mundie. He may have been dead for almost three hundred years, but despite that he stinks up the room less."

Although it was a funny quote, IMO Linus went too far with it. I'm sure all the Linux geeks giggled, but it's just not very professional, and if we want Linux to have a clean image (I do), than we gotta have a clean fight - not a cat fight.