Slashdot Mirror

Journalists: Beware! San Jose Mercury technology reporter Dan Gilmore recently discovered he's been assigned a special "owner" at one of Microsoft's public relations firms, Waggener-Edstrom. These spin-masters are attached to troublesome journalists like Gilmore who have the temerity to write uncomplimentary articles about the company or its products. The really irksome reporters, according to documents spirited from the Waggener-Edstrom offices, are also assigned "buddies" at Microsoft itself. John Dodge, the editor of PC Week, has a special buddy at Microsoft, and Mary Jo Foley at Smart Reseller, is the subject of a "Mary Jo six month plan."

HEY, BUDDY: I learned today that I have an owner at Microsoft Corp.'s primary public-relations agency. The Mercury News received a copy of a document created by someone at the Waggener-Edstrom firm, in which various media reports (at least the ones perceived as having anything negative to say) about Microsoft are analyzed, with recommendations on how to deal with the journalist in question. Mary Jo Foley, of the trade journal Smart Reseller, may be intrigued to learn that she's the subject of a ``Mary Jo six month plan.'' The document provides more evidence, if anyone needed it, that Microsoft spares no expense in marketing. Every problem article has an ``owner'' at the PR agency; the owner works with the reporter either to correct errors or put a more positive spin on the situation. Some reporters also have a ``buddy'' at Microsoft; for example, PC Week's John Dodge has an unnamed buddy who is supposed to ``send mail ---- `John, that's random' '' in response to a Dodge column. My own recent piece, in which I described a messy and unsuccessful attempt to install Windows 98, caught Microsoft's attention. My Waggener-Edstrom owner is working with Microsoft ``to send letter inquiring about Dan's problems and emphasizing MS commitment to quality products.'' It appears, however, that I don't have a buddy at Microsoft. I am devastated.

Microsoft makes world domination push with China partnership
Original Mong: JON FORTT/Mercury News
Microsoft will soon make another big push into the world domination business, after a five-year deal struck with China. Microsoft and China announced Thursday that Microsoft will be the exclusive everything provider to China's citizens. China is home to serves more than 5 billion citizens, roughy 30% of the world's population.

China will discontinue its own political domination. About 5,000 of China's citizens get direct access to this domination through fear every day, either through subjugation or spying.

Specific terms of the deal were not disclosed. But as part of the deal, China promised to do away with the Tebitian problem. Microsoft also gets first crack at invading Taiwan next quarter, who will have the option of switching over to MSDN (Microsoft Domination Network) or finding a new ally. China projects that the deal could bring the country as much as $31.5 billion over five years.

So far Microsoft's efforts in the world domination arena have fallen flat. Former partner North Korea has filed for protection from the United States, and Microsoft's co-branded MS-Cuba program has not done much business. All together, said Expansion and Marketing Manager Bob Visse, Microsoft has fewer than two billion customers acquired through world domination.

The deal with China, which could turn out to be the largest an country has made with a company, could be the beginning of a larger trend. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said he is eager to strike similar deals with other countries, he also went on to state that Russia is pretty close to China, although he declined to comment on any plans to buy Russia.

Plus, Microsoft has to plan ahead. AOL Time Warner, which is both the biggest media companies with a large user base, has a clearer path to domintating the rest of the world, with their recent acquisitions of Canada and South America.

For other reasons, it is in Microsoft's interest to push the adoption of it's agenda. Many of Microsoft's plans, including the consumer segment of its .Net strategy, the Xbox video game console and the wired home, require them to have lots of citizens to buy them without qustion. For competitive reasons, it's in Microsoft's interest to do it quickly.

``We think this is going to be just a super-attractive opportunity for us to switch the disenfranchised Chinese citizens who are in a evil beurocratic communist country, to one that is owned by Microsoft,'' Visse said.

China's territory includes more than 20 miles out to sea, but not according to the United States.

---

Microsoft makes world domination push with China partnership
Original Mong: JON FORTT/Mercury News
Microsoft will soon make another big push into the world domination business, after a five-year deal struck with China. Microsoft and China announced Thursday that Microsoft will be the exclusive everything provider to China's citizens. China is home to serves more than 5 billion citizens, roughy 30% of the world's population.

China will discontinue its own political domination. About 5,000 of China's citizens get direct access to this domination through fear every day, either through subjugation or spying.

Specific terms of the deal were not disclosed. But as part of the deal, China promised to do away with the Tebitian problem. Microsoft also gets first crack at invading Taiwan next quarter, who will have the option of switching over to MSDN (Microsoft Domination Network) or finding a new ally. China projects that the deal could bring the country as much as $31.5 billion over five years.

So far Microsoft's efforts in the world domination arena have fallen flat. Former partner North Korea has filed for protection from the United States, and Microsoft's co-branded MS-Cuba program has not done much business. All together, said Expansion and Marketing Manager Bob Visse, Microsoft has fewer than two billion customers acquired through world domination.

The deal with China, which could turn out to be the largest an country has made with a company, could be the beginning of a larger trend. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said he is eager to strike similar deals with other countries, he also went on to state that Russia is pretty close to China, although he declined to comment on any plans to buy Russia.

Plus, Microsoft has to plan ahead. AOL Time Warner, which is both the biggest media companies with a large user base, has a clearer path to domintating the rest of the world, with their recent acquisitions of Canada and South America.

For other reasons, it is in Microsoft's interest to push the adoption of it's agenda. Many of Microsoft's plans, including the consumer segment of its .Net strategy, the Xbox video game console and the wired home, require them to have lots of citizens to buy them without qustion. For competitive reasons, it's in Microsoft's interest to do it quickly.

``We think this is going to be just a super-attractive opportunity for us to switch the disenfranchised Chinese citizens who are in a evil beurocratic communist country, to one that is owned by Microsoft,'' Visse said.

China's territory includes more than 20 miles out to sea, but not according to the United States.

---

This is the sort of story that should be turned into a mass mailing to your local and national news outlets.

Here's a few addresses:

letters@nytimes.com

letters@sjmercury.com

dmnweb.dallasnews.com/letters

AP Bureaus by State

(I get a kick out of their triple-bank rolodex logo. Someone needs to add one of those to Aqua.)

--Blair

--

• ZDNet: Decision is "Shocking"
• San Jose Mercury News: DMCA comes back to haunt consumers

So M$ is building a custom chip to keep the hardware costs down on their low-cost internet appliance. There is a slightly better version of the story on the Mercury News.

Lots of companies do this when the cost of assembling a bunch of separate components gets to be too expensive. If you know you have a large market, it is cheaper in the long run to invest in designing a custom chip to perform a single function. It eliminates all the overhead cruft of general purpose computers like the intel architecture. In simple economics terms, this is the easy answer.

For those with a suspicious bent towards anything M$ does, it could be a slap at intel or a first step towards creating a computing platform where competitors can't run. They could be trying to make a system with integrated audio/video streams which will only play a proprietary format which M$ controls, and since the codec is in hardware, no competitor could weasel its way onto the box and steal some content marketshare. Your call.

It'll be interesting if these new boxes turn out like closed architectures, like gaming consoles. Why does that sound like a challenge to figure a way to install Linux? :-)

the AC

Here is the complete article at San Jose Mercury's site.

See FDA Consumer Update on Mobile Phones (October 1999).
San Jose Mercury News has a story

My personal observation is that mobile-phone-dependent people tend to have a very short attention span. I don't know which causes which, though. Maybe the FDA will test that in lab.

Quick summary: In 1998 March, a kid at a school wore a Pepsi shirt on "Coke Day", when his school was trying to win some contest for most Coke-themed day or something. He was suspended for "disruption" and for ruining the picture they were trying to take. It's a pretty sorry story, actually.

Here's list of links to stories on the affair:

http://www.adbu sters.org/campaigns/commercialfree/toolbox/coke.ht ml
http://www.corpwa tch.org/trac/corner/worldnews/other/other122.html
http://www.sjmercury.com/digita lhigh/news/coke98.htm

to this discussion, I found a couple of related articles in the SJMerc News.
this one mentions some of the 14 gov't agencies hit buy the worm.

this one highlights stuff from the congressional hearings on the worm and security in general. Both pretty good reads. No real bashing/praising one way or t'other.

to this discussion, I found a couple of related articles in the SJMerc News.
this one mentions some of the 14 gov't agencies hit buy the worm.

this one highlights stuff from the congressional hearings on the worm and security in general. Both pretty good reads. No real bashing/praising one way or t'other.

I just updated my mirror page with a link to this slashdot article. I thought I'd post the others on the list here for everyone's edification (and because the server of my personal web page probably wouldn't take it if you went there for it!)

• Wired: Mattel Stays on the Offensive (27 Mar 2000 2:45PM PT)
  "Upping the stakes in a battle over a utility that reveals Cyberpatrol's list of off-limits websites, Mattel threatened mirror sites with contempt charges during a court hearing Monday afternoon."
• ZDNet: Hackers settle Cyber Patrol suit (27 Mar 2000 2:11PM PT)
  "ACLU attorney 'surprised' as programmers surrender rights to their hack of Cyber Patrol filter and agree to permanent injunction."
• ZDNet: ACLU slams Cyber Patrol tactics (27 Mar 2000 4:03AM PT)
  "The American Civil Liberties Union criticized Internet filtering software maker Microsystems Software Inc. and its parent company Mattel Inc. on Friday, accusing them of attempting to limit free speech on the Internet."
• Wired: Mattel's Filter Fiasco to Court (27 Mar 2000 3:00AM PT)
  "A federal judge in Boston will hear arguments on Monday over whether a program that reveals Cyberpatrol's secret blacklist should be banned from the Internet."
• ZDNet: You've got a subpoena! (24 Mar 2000)
  "Call it legal spam. Lawyers in the Cyber Patrol legal battle have created an e-precedent -- sending subpoenas by e-mail."
• CNN: Cyber Patrol decoding brawl gets ugly and international (21 Mar 2000)
  "A legal dispute between a U.S. toymaker that produces a popular Internet pornography filter and two programmers that decoded the software could heat up into a messy international brawl."
• Slashdot: Mattel/Cyber Patrol Censors Critics Again (20 Mar 2000)
  "Mattel is updating the Cyber Patrol blacklists for all of their customers to include the homepages of the authors and all of the mirrors, blocked under every blocking category the product has."
• USA Today: Judge helps Mattel zap effort to undermine filter (20 Mar 2000)
  What a misleading headline. Yet another example of McPaper earning its abysmal reputation.
• Wired: CyberPatrol Hackers Lose Round (17 Mar 2000)
  "A federal judge in Boston has tried to ban the distribution of a computer program that reveals CyberPatrol's secret list of sex sites."
• Slashdot: Mattel dislikes being embarrassed (16 Mar 2000)
  "In addition to demanding the removal of the decryption utility, Mattel is also seeking the logfiles of the Swedish ISP that hosts the decryption utility, to identify everyone who has downloaded it to date. Today's news was filled with Mattel's PR lies about their suit."
• Wired: Mattel Sues Over Blocking Hack (16 Mar 2000)
  "Toy-maker Mattel has sued two programmers who revealed how to circumvent its CyberPatrol blocking software."

Several news outlets uncritically ran Ted Bridis's AP newswire story characterizing the decryption program as a tool to let children view pornography:

"A company that makes popular software to block children from Internet pornography is suing two computer experts for distributing a method for kids to deduce their parents' password and access those forbidden Web sites."

• SJ Mercury News: Software Co. Sues Hackers (15 Mar 2000)
  
• cnet: Hackers crack online porn filters (16 Mar 2000)
  cnet's version adds this interesting paragraph:

  "Early today, activists copied the utility and details of the effort and began distributing them across the Internet on nearly two dozen Web sites that duplicated Jansson and Skala's original work. Those efforts apparently were coordinated on technology Web site Slashdot.org, where the lawsuit was roundly condemned."

• CNN: Software company files lawsuit against hackers (16 Mar 2000)
  CNN's version also adds the cnet paragraph and some additional reportage, but still mischaracterizes the program. However, their later coverage was more evenhanded.

Hollywood made their intentions clear today: Your computer no longer belongs to you, but to the corporations that provide "content" for it.

Today, in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Judge William J. Elfving presided at a preliminary hearing in the case of the DVD Copyright Control Association versus... well, everyone. The judge heard arguments to determine if a Temporary Restraining Order should be imposed on the entire Internet forbidding the dissemination of the now-famous DeCSS decryption code.

I woke up this morning at 06:10, an abhorrent waking hour for a software geek. I then proceeded to do something which, if you know me at all, is completely out of character: I put on dress slacks, shirt, and a tie. I hadn't tied a tie in several years, so it took a couple of tries before I got it right. The drive to the courthouse in San Jose was amazingly uneventful. Highway 101 southbound during rush hour is ususally a complete mess.

I was one of the first to arrive at the courthouse. After having my bag X-rayed and depositing my set of screwdrivers with them, I found myself joining a growing group of people waiting for the court offices to open so that we could find out to which courtroom the case had been assigned. Some of the people present were well-known names to most Slashdotters, including Bruce Perens and John Gilmore. I imagine we were a bit of a conundrum for the law enforcement officers present, no doubt used to parades of well-dressed lawyers who, unlike us, know exactly what to do and where to go.

At 08:15, the offices opened, and counsel for the plaintiffs filed their complaint, which was assigned a case number. We then made our way to courtroom two on the second floor, awaiting the doors to open. By the time the doors opened, we numbered about thirty people. Plaintiff's counsel pretty much kept to themselves, while we made a slight racket talking to each other. One individual (don't know who) started passing out copies of the DeCSS code, both in printed form and on repurposed Microsoft Office setup floppies. One such set was handed jovially to plaintiff's counsel.

Interviews were also being conducted by, among others, a reporter from WiReD Magazine, and Tracy Romine for KCBS radio.

Eventually, the doors opened, and we all became quiet as church mice and filed into the courtroom. Once counsels for both sides were ready, Judge Elfving was announced and entered, and court was in session.

Appearing for the plaintiffs were three lawyers from the law firm representing the DVD CCA. Appearing for the defense were two lawyers from the EFF. Of the fifteen or so named defendants and the 500 John Does named in the DVD CCA's complaint, only one appeared in court, summons in hand, whom the EFF were representing.

The hearing was to hear the filing of the complaint, and to consider imposing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) which would forbid everyone named in the complaint (basically the entire Internet) from further distributing the DeCSS code. If imposed, this order would be effective until the date of the next hearing, at which will be considered imposing a much longer-lasting Preliminary Injunction.

The first order of business was to set the date for the next hearing, and the dates for the filing of notices, papers and arguments prior to that hearing. The next hearing to consider the Preliminary Injunction will be at 13:30, 14 January, 2000.

Finally, we got to oral arguments for and against imposing a TRO. At this point my report gets hazy, as I didn't start banging out notes until after the recess. Basically, plaintiff's counsel repeated the main thrust of the complaint arguing that, if left unchecked, irreparable, serious harm would befall the DVD CCA, numerous Silicon Valley firms, the movie industry and, presumably, the American way of life. Counsel also produced the copy of the DeCSS code which he'd been handed earlier, and asked that it be admitted into evidence, and requested that its contents be sealed. This request drew polite laughter from the gallery. The Judge nevertheless agreed to the request, in the interests of not prejudicing the case, and admitted the exhibits and sealed them.

EFF counsel then began, and proceeded to characterize this case as hinging on freedom of speech. They drew upon numerous citations, including a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that code is speech. Defense made note of the fact that, in free speech cases, prior restraint of speech is presumptively invalid unless extraordinary circumstances are present.

The EFF also noted that the true original source of the DeCSS code is not known, therefore characterizations about its origins are speculative. Plaintiffs assert that it was obtained illegally; defense asserts there's no evidence or inference to that effect.

The EFF then went on to debunk the plaintiff's claim of irreparable, serious harm. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that sales of DVD discs, DVD players, and DVD encryption licenses have suffered due to the release of DeCSS. Defense made the revealing statement that DVD discs may be copied without the use of DeCSS.

Defense also drew notice to a similar case in Chicago concerning door locks being reverse-engineered by locksmiths; the lock manufacturer attempted to sue for theft of trade secrets, and lost.

Plaintiff's counsel then rebutted the EFF's arguments, claiming that this case had nothing whatever to do with free speech; that in no way were the plaintiffs seeking to quash discussion about this case. They asserted that this was a clear-cut case concerning misappropriation of trade secrets, and that all they claimed they were interested in was halting further dissemination of their trade secrets. They asserted that all parties "know, or should have known," that the DeCSS code was obtained illegally.

DVD CCA's arguments seem to hinge rather pivotally on the license "agreement" that accompanys the Xing player. CCA states that, in order to be able to use the software, you must become a party to an "agreement" that, among other things, forbids reverse-engineering. If the "agreement" is binding, then the Xing keys were extracted in violation of it, and thus the DeCSS code is illegal. (I wrote a long editorial on the subject of shrinkwrap "agreements", and why they are ethically and legally indefensible. It may be found here.)

The plaintiff then went on to assert that, if a TRO was not granted, a campaign would ensue on the Internet to spread the DeCSS code as far and wide as possible, until it finally reached the hands of an "innocent person" who could not reasonably be shown that they "should have known" the code was illegal, at which point CCA's trade secrets would be lost forever.

The EFF took the floor again, and cited the recent cryptography case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was found that computer code is speech, and thus protectible under First Amendment auspices. They reasserted that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that the disputed material was obtained improperly.

EFF also made the point that the Xing player may be inspected and analyzed without ever seeing the "license" that purports to govern its use. CCA tried to claim, "Hacking around the license is itself improper," but the EFF lawyer corrected him, saying, "I did not suggest hacking was employed."

Finally, Judge Elfving retired to his chambers to consider the arguments, and court was adjourned.

Our group filed out of the courtroom, and eventually ended up in the courtyard outside. There were some members of the press conducting additional interviews, including Tracy Romine of KCBS radio, who interviewed Bruce Perens, John Gilmore, and also snagged a soundbite from me.

Most of the group then wandered off to have lunch at a Cuban restaurant selected by Chris DiBona, which I couldn't find, so I settled for the nearest Hobee's for a very late breakfast. Afterwards, I headed back to the courthouse, made another trip through the metal detector (they didn't take my screwdrivers this time), and went upstairs to courtroom #2 to see if there were any new developments. No one knew if the judge had rendered his decision yet, so I sat down in the hall and started to write this report.

As I did so, at around 14:30, Judge Elfving walked past. I asked if he had rendered a decision on the TRO yet. He said he was still studying the issues and would have a decision by the end of the afternoon.

Sometime later, Dan "Karma Whore" Kaminsky ( :-) ) walked up, and we got to chatting about the case, the Internet, the nature of digital media and its social and economic implications, the legitimacy of shrinkwrap "licenses", and so on. Around 16:30, we were joined by a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News, and asked us about what had brought us there.

Dan focused on his desire to play DVDs on his Linux box, asking the question, "Why shouldn't I be able to do that? More important, why should a movie studio have the power to tell me I can't do that?"

I preferred to focus on preserving the freedom to explore. "I taught myself about computers by taking apart other people's stuff, understanding how it works, and using that knowledge to build new stuff. I have a good job today because I had the freedom to make those explorations and gain the knowledge and skills I now have. They're trying to tell me that's illegal. I don't buy it."

The reporter also asked what possible reason, other than copying, could there be for DeCSS to exist? I tried (probably unsuccessfully) to draw a parallel to that neato display hack, Cthugha. Since the images generated by Cthugha are the direct result of the copyrighted digital data coming off the CD, are the generated images therefore covered by the same copyright? Since the publishers of the CD didn't explicitly grant the right to use their CD in this particular way, does that make it illegal, or even unethical, to do so?

While we were discussing this, around 16:30, one of the court employees emerged from the judge's chambers and informed us that the request for the Temporary Restraining Order had been denied. We got a brief look at the document issued from the judge. No reason was given for the denial; it was simply the proposed order written by the plaintiffs, with the TRO sections crossed out, effectively turning it into a notice as to when the next hearing would occur. Judge Elfving was unavailable for comment.

And thus ended an unusually long and interesting day. The San Jose Mercury reporter left, and Dan and I parted ways. I headed home and finished this report. Traffic on Highway 101 was, once again, astonishingly good for five PM.

The next hearing is at 13:30, 14 January, 2000. It's a Friday afternoon. I expect the session to be packed.

Schwab

Here are a few interesting links:

Tom Vogt's site - lots of info and links

OpenDVD.org - arguments against CSS

SJ Mercury article by Dave Wilson

Douglas

This SJMercury article has more info about the technology. Gives a good overview of the subject, and mentions Cadillac's system.

Also, I've seen similar night vision setups sold by a number of dealers specializing in armored vehicles. I can't find any specific links, though.

Is the 44Mbps shared, or 44Mbps per user?

For what it's worth; the following is from NewsScan Daily:

CISCO'S WIRELESS STRATEGY
Cisco Systems has provided more details on its new wireless strategy (NewsScan Daily 29 Nov 99), which uses MMDS technology (multichannel multipoint distribution services) to eliminate the "ghosting" phenomenon that distorts TV pictures and interrupts cell phone calls in large cities. Saying its goal is "to build alternative access technologies and provide consistent service delivery" over any type of communications device, Cisco's system will allow 3,000 simultaneous users to receive data 1,000 times faster than from a typical voice line. Transceiver equipment costing less than $500 could be marketed to consumers by mid-2000. (AP/San Jose Mercury News 1 Dec 99)
http://www.sjmer cury.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/047945.htm

IPO's can be used by *people with a surplus of stored value (ca$h or credit) to multiply said surplus as much and as fast as possible and preferably with the least possible effort. If successful, such users earn themselves even more "freedom". (from what: fear? envy? lack of sex appeal? who knows?;) anyways..

Companies which conduct these IPO's exploit such human virtues to raise money (needed to finance international legal and customer aquisition costs.. (remember, you are now an Internet company dotcom(tm), or you are roadkill, and this web grows global fast)). Founders and early investors of Internet companies can also use these IPO's to amass fabulous fortunes for themselves to diversify and secure by investing in new IPO's, politicians , etc.

Now, partially owned by the "public" (see above*), stock prices reflect "our" confidence in the company's potential to profit. Company managers, typically holding stakes of their own, spur the company to attract the highest possible share price. Bottom line. Period.

Whether our grandchildren or theirs will regard this behavior as blatently criminal is another question.

Whether there are alternatives to inequity exacerbating IPO and "street" methods of idea "ownership" is a question I hope /. will address and soon. After all, the MAN(tm), his law(tm) and by-laws(IPO Corp.) are forms of "code", right? (They instruct energetic systems to behave predictably. Or try to.)

So how do IPO's and like ownership models perpetuate "code"? Openly? How does it affect our capacity to trade our learning and creativity? Are there alternatives? Here may be a interesting one:

"Chaord" or "chaordic". [haHA! 2nd post:] It's shocking that Dotters of Slash completely ignore an archetypical business structure that seems to effectively trade creativity and borderlessly: Visa International. Growth? 20% annually, since way before any long boom, past $ 1.2trillion in '98 sales, no end in sight. Method? Better attract human ingenuity, (the most valuable AND abundant resource on the planet.) Blend competition with cooperation, seamlessly. Failure? Dee Hock, who founded Visa, says it could have been four times more powerful if ownership had been extended to merchants and cardholders.. Customers owning the business? COOL! bu..WTF!? How to hack that???

IPO? Stock? Forget it. Visa can't bought, sold, traded or raided. Ownership is shared in non-transferable rights of participation.

It's a very unusual "learning organization": commanders don't control it from the center. Instead, chaos organizes itself at the edges, adapting locally, learning and evolving. Advantages arise out of individual initiative. Ideally, "chaorganizations" are "equitable owned by all participants." Sound like a more "open source" code for biz? IMHO, /. and RHAT and MP3c may have kinda choked if they didn't consider more "open" ownership models, proven successful by Visa..

Anyway, a more positive way to look at IPO's and Public Companies is as forms of "currency". If you have some to spare, you could buy gold, but you have to pay someone to guard it, and gold's value is dropping. You could guard U.S.Gov't(tm) printed dead prezidents, but why do it when your banker will pay you interest to borrow them? Still, who wants a measly 6% when brand-name "currency" like yahoo! or rhat or idealab! may earn me 600%? In this light, it's more rewarding to invest in people and ideas rather than self-obsoleting systems or hoarding stores of value. Currency users now have more options, can better "vote with their pocketbook", perpetuate what they value, and maybe earn themselves some more "freedom". More options, more freedom? Who knows?

links, again, on dee hock, visa, and chaords:
http://www.chaordic.org/chaordic /chaos_is_good.htm
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/dee_hock.htm ">
http://www.fastcompany.com/online /05/deehock.html

I think the Clinton administration is just throwing the dog a bone on this one. They have eased up only slightly on large companies with existing export agreements on crypto previously approved for export. In the future, a company will have to go through an export review only once before being allowed to ship crypto inside of another product. There is clearly no mention of freeware or OSS products in these press releases.

What this bill does not cover includes sales to any foreign government, military, or ISP. Those will still require a case-by-case review. Only products that meet the requirements for law-enforcement intercept will get this one time approval, so key-escrow and door-bell systems will quickly get the green light, others will have to slog through a years long process. They will still criminalize exports to "terrorist" countries, such as Cuba, but allow it to friendly nations like Columbia.

Nobody gets to see the wording of this new policy until December, so it is hard to tell why Hamre and Reno are smiling at this announcement. I have a feeling there is nothing new here except a minor improvement for big companies in return for a drop-in-the-bucket US$80million for a dedicated cryptanalysis team for the FBI. Its just a PR move.

For another slightly pessimistic view, go read this San Jose Merc article. Given the track record of the administration, I really don't think they've suddenly given up the fight and want strong crypto everywhere.

the AC

But Floyd winds are 117% of NASA shuttle hangar strength. Keep watching the skies...

The review here says that they plan to add a marketing department. If you remember, that's what brought down NirvanaCo, Dilber's employer-for-a-show. Hope they know what they're doing :)

This site has a little more information/details.

This article on SiliconValley gives a tad more information, though it's still lacking any real content.

Dan Gillmor's Messaging flap makes Microsoft, AOL instant hypocrites is great, and No truce in AOL, Microsoft war is also worth a read.

Dan Gillmor's Messaging flap makes Microsoft, AOL instant hypocrites is great, and No truce in AOL, Microsoft war is also worth a read.

lin ked here...

Rob does have better things to do than talk to those people. Most of the trade press is clue-impaired. There are only a few journalists I can think of who consistently "get it": Andrew Leonard of Salon Magazine's "21st" section is probably the best out there, and Dan Gillmor of the San Jose Mercury News has a clue.

Notice that what these guys have in common is that commercial software companies aren't paying their bills: they write for more general-interest publications. This means they get to stay honest. Folks who write for Ziff-Davis or IDG publications are under great pressure to be whores.

Today's San Jose Mercury News highlighted that a sytem with 2 Pentium III's would require a license if exported to certain countries. The production of the E2K outside of the US would demonstrate the flaw in export controls. The technology is not limited to the US.

Posted by The Famous Brett Watson:

Dan Gillmor has some things to say about Iomega, prompted in part by their purchase of SyQuest. The SyQuest 88MB cartridge drive was one of the best purchases I ever made. I don't use it much anymore, but I get nostalgic thinking about it and the Amigas it roved.