Slashdot Mirror

If it is password-protected, it means I have to pass password to decrypt my private key with my email which will make it even more confusing, unsecure and most of email clients not compatible.

Not neccessarily. If STARTTLS + SMTP AUTH was the submission protocol, and the AUTH password was used to decrypt the private key, then you've still got user password control with great email client compatibility.

If it is not - it means someone will encrypt and sign my email on my behalf. In many jurisdictions the digital sig is just like sig on paper. If something else but me signs my data - it blows the whole PKI thing out of the water.

But PKI isn't necessary for legally binding digital signatures in many jurisdictions, so this setup is no weaker than current practice. See Doherty v. RMV, where email marked "This is the report of TROOPER THOMAS KELLEY and was made by TROOPER THOMAS KELLEY under the penalties of perjury. Data entry and transmission were done by KELLY, THOMAS by or at the direction of TROOPER THOMAS KELLEY" was deemed to be a valid signature by the court. No PKI required.

Massachusetts Attorney General

This page also has a link to a complaint form where you can send your Microsoft gripes.

I don't live in Massachusetts, but I'm thinking about writing anyway. I think we should take the time to formulate a few good letters to send to the Mass. Attorney General. In particular, we can address some of the following points (of course this is an incomplete list):

• Lack of OEM support for non-Microsoft software. While there are several computer companies offering Linux pre-installed on their systems, the average consumer probably isn't aware of these companies. Even the "Linux aware" crowd has to use a little extra effort to ensure they are getting Linux-friendly systems.
• Why major computer distributors don't offer their systems without Windows at a reduced price. Unless you put forth the (extra) effort to find a Linux OEM, you probably can't get a computer without an operating system (at least from major distributors). The Massachusetts Attorney General should investigate potential strong-arming with OEMs.
• How the Microsoft monopoly perpetuates itself through vendor lock-in and closed, proprietary data formats. If enough people push hard enough, maybe the Mass. Attorney General could actually get Microsoft to publish complete, correct documentation for their data formats. (I'm starting to write letters/articles addressing this issue that I intend to send to editorials.)

All in all, I think the fundamental problem is lack of information. The average person probably isn't aware that the Microsoft monopoly compromises his rights (and is effectively a tax on computer hardware); most folks don't understand proprietary data formats or vendor lock-in; most people don't realize the scope of Microsoft's questionable business practices...

Get the word out, get the word out, get the word out!

Massachusetts Attorney General

This page also has a link to a complaint form where you can send your Microsoft gripes.

I don't live in Massachusetts, but I'm thinking about writing anyway. I think we should take the time to formulate a few good letters to send to the Mass. Attorney General. In particular, we can address some of the following points (of course this is an incomplete list):

• Lack of OEM support for non-Microsoft software. While there are several computer companies offering Linux pre-installed on their systems, the average consumer probably isn't aware of these companies. Even the "Linux aware" crowd has to use a little extra effort to ensure they are getting Linux-friendly systems.
• Why major computer distributors don't offer their systems without Windows at a reduced price. Unless you put forth the (extra) effort to find a Linux OEM, you probably can't get a computer without an operating system (at least from major distributors). The Massachusetts Attorney General should investigate potential strong-arming with OEMs.
• How the Microsoft monopoly perpetuates itself through vendor lock-in and closed, proprietary data formats. If enough people push hard enough, maybe the Mass. Attorney General could actually get Microsoft to publish complete, correct documentation for their data formats. (I'm starting to write letters/articles addressing this issue that I intend to send to editorials.)

All in all, I think the fundamental problem is lack of information. The average person probably isn't aware that the Microsoft monopoly compromises his rights (and is effectively a tax on computer hardware); most folks don't understand proprietary data formats or vendor lock-in; most people don't realize the scope of Microsoft's questionable business practices...

Get the word out, get the word out, get the word out!

Microsoft

In 1998, Massachusetts, together with a group of states and the United States Department of Justice, filed a civil law suit against Microsoft Corporation alleging antitrust violations. In 2000, the Court found Microsoft liable for maintaining an illegal monopoly in personal computer operating systems. In November 2002, following an appeal and several court hearings, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a judgment in the Massachusetts case prohibiting Microsoft from continuing certain unlawful conduct.

Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly is seeking stricter and more rigorous restrictions on Microsoft's business practices than those put in place by the Court judgment, and has asked the Court of Appeals to consider the matter. Massachusetts is scheduled to argue its appeal in November 2003.

Even though Massachusetts is pursuing a further remedy, the Massachusetts Attorney General is working to ensure that Microsoft complies with the injunction issued in November 2002. If you or your business have a complaint about Microsoft's business behavior or practices, please complete a Complaint Form (File Size: 26 KB) and forward it to the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108-1598, Attention: Kenneth Miller, CPAD. If you have a complaint against Microsoft, you also may call Kenneth Miller at (617) 727-2200 ext. 2965.

Microsoft

In 1998, Massachusetts, together with a group of states and the United States Department of Justice, filed a civil law suit against Microsoft Corporation alleging antitrust violations. In 2000, the Court found Microsoft liable for maintaining an illegal monopoly in personal computer operating systems. In November 2002, following an appeal and several court hearings, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a judgment in the Massachusetts case prohibiting Microsoft from continuing certain unlawful conduct.

Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly is seeking stricter and more rigorous restrictions on Microsoft's business practices than those put in place by the Court judgment, and has asked the Court of Appeals to consider the matter. Massachusetts is scheduled to argue its appeal in November 2003.

Even though Massachusetts is pursuing a further remedy, the Massachusetts Attorney General is working to ensure that Microsoft complies with the injunction issued in November 2002. If you or your business have a complaint about Microsoft's business behavior or practices, please complete a Complaint Form (File Size: 26 KB) and forward it to the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108-1598, Attention: Kenneth Miller, CPAD. If you have a complaint against Microsoft, you also may call Kenneth Miller at (617) 727-2200 ext. 2965.

Hey, if you live in Mass, write your state representative already! Barely anyone does, so they'll probably even listen to you! I'm going to dump some information I found on the Mass.gov site, and you can use it to find your reps and write them.

First of all, I believe the matter under discussion is House 1622, Petition of Ronald Mariano relative to the interpretation of computer information agreement contracts. Though as you can see from the JCCL homepage, there's lots to choose from and I'm not shocked they didn't act at the hearing on June 2.

If you don't know who to write to, visit the Who are my elected officials? page and type in your addres. And be sure to pick the STATE reps, as they're listed alongside your US reps in a way that's less-than-clear (to me anyway).

I haven't cooked up a boilerplate letter or anything... I figure I'll just synthesize something from this article and the EFF page regarding UCITA. If anyone is more familiar than me with the Mass state legislature, and can let me know if House 1622 is actually what we want, please get in touch.

Hey, if you live in Mass, write your state representative already! Barely anyone does, so they'll probably even listen to you! I'm going to dump some information I found on the Mass.gov site, and you can use it to find your reps and write them.

First of all, I believe the matter under discussion is House 1622, Petition of Ronald Mariano relative to the interpretation of computer information agreement contracts. Though as you can see from the JCCL homepage, there's lots to choose from and I'm not shocked they didn't act at the hearing on June 2.

If you don't know who to write to, visit the Who are my elected officials? page and type in your addres. And be sure to pick the STATE reps, as they're listed alongside your US reps in a way that's less-than-clear (to me anyway).

I haven't cooked up a boilerplate letter or anything... I figure I'll just synthesize something from this article and the EFF page regarding UCITA. If anyone is more familiar than me with the Mass state legislature, and can let me know if House 1622 is actually what we want, please get in touch.

Whoa there! In literary circles there's an idea called "context", in which discussions of bikes vs. Segways don't degenerate into discussions of bikes vs. cars or pedestrians. But thank you for supporting debate rather than just using mod points - I'd much rather have to defend my beliefs than be told unilaterally "you're wrong". As for your argument:

(a) Yes, pure trolldom. But since my point was to discuss bicycles vs. Segways (which are roughly equivalent with regard to speed but nothing else), I feel justified in trolling. The implied solution I offered was to ride a bike rather than a Segway. That way you not only get some exercise, but you get some legal protection as well (read below). And for the amount of money you'd spend on a Segway, you can get a REALLY nice bike.

(b) First of all, you're wrong - it's the RELATIVE velocity of the two bodies that's important. I won't argue here about the relative speeds of bikes vs. Segways, because I don't expect everyone to be riding their bikes (or driving their Segways) at top speed. Regardless, I agree that getting hit by a car when you're on a bike totally sucks. But getting hit when you're on a Segway, for which most state codes don't have laws about wearing helmets or obeying the rules of the road, isn't any better. And as you point out, "Riding on the sidewalk doesn't necessarily make you safer", which argues against one of the justifications for a Segway, "You don't have to share the road with cars that might hit you". As for my "great luck", it comes from being careful and following the rules of the road - read below.

c) What did you expect to happen when you were riding on the sidewalk? Your typical driver doesn't expect high-speed traffic on the sidewalk. This is my biggest argument for bikes vs. Segways. If you're going to go fast, you should be on the street - most states' vehicle laws regarding bicycles (read mine here) specify that you can only ride on the sidewalk "outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety...." If you're riding fast, you should be in the street so cars pay attention to you. This, and the fact that I expect cars not to notice me unless I force them to, is why I haven't been hit, not my "great luck", as you imply. If you weren't riding fast (i.e., if you were going at the speed of typical pedestrians on the sidwalk), then your argument has nothing to do with bicycles, because you would've had the same problem as a pedestrian. In any case, since there are no laws preventing people from riding Segways fast on the sidewalk, your experience only supports arguments against using Segways.

I don't care if you walk, drive your car, ride a bike, or steer a Segway - my point is that a Segway is equivalent to a bicycle (a) without the legal restrictions, (b) without the safety regulations, and (c) without the exercise. So why should I want to ride one?

Filing with the Mass AG is a good idea -- when I've talked to them they've always been very helpful (I live in Mass).

Furthermore, the practice described in the article seems to violate a major provision of the Mass Consumer Protection Law (emphasis mine):

Disclosure of Facts

Mass. Gen. Law Chapter 93A
940 Code of Mass. Regs. 3.05

When you buy from a merchant, you are entitled to all the key facts about the purchase before you buy.

A merchant is obligated under the law to disclose any fact, the disclosure of which may have influenced the buyer not to enter into the transaction to start with.

Similarly, sellers are required in advertising to disclose all material facts concerning the product or service which, if not disclosed, might directly or by implication, mislead the consumer.

Private party sellers, except in car sales, do not have the same obligation to disclose material facts unless asked.

Seems to me that since this change would have affected the decision to make the purchase, the law is pretty cut and dried on this. Of course, IANAL....

The MA State Website has the location details.

According to this the MA proposed super-DMCA bill has been referred to the committee on criminal justice and there is a public hearing scheduled on April 2. Doesn't sound dead to me (as one other poster claimed).

Does anyone know how people can get into that meeting and testify? I'd hope some quick grass-roots opposition could kill this.

...has nothing to do with it ever becoming law (other than it could become law).

This is because any number of crackpot bills get introduced because Massachusetts law requires a member of the General Court to file any and all bills given them by their constituents. If I were to give Steve Brewer or Anne Gobi a bill to prohibit drinking, dancing, and anything that a reasonable person might consider fun, they would be required to file it.

...has nothing to do with it ever becoming law (other than it could become law).

This is because any number of crackpot bills get introduced because Massachusetts law requires a member of the General Court to file any and all bills given them by their constituents. If I were to give Steve Brewer or Anne Gobi a bill to prohibit drinking, dancing, and anything that a reasonable person might consider fun, they would be required to file it.

I can't speak to the storage tanks issue, but as to child support, the state^H^H^H^H^HCommonwealth has become fairly aggressive in enforcing support payments from delinquent parents. See this page for more details.

But what about this?

You can also view the time line of Massachusett's involvment in the antitrust trial.

Good luck navigating our Attorney General's website - the information may be there, but it's hard to find.

On a completely unrelated tangent, the Massachusetts Government Portal runs on a Netscape Enterprise Server under Solaris 8. Apparently they've had over a year of uptime, after switching away from IIS. (With a brief transition to Apache.) Apparently this isn't the first time the state has moved away from Microsoft.

You can also view the time line of Massachusett's involvment in the antitrust trial.

Good luck navigating our Attorney General's website - the information may be there, but it's hard to find.

On a completely unrelated tangent, the Massachusetts Government Portal runs on a Netscape Enterprise Server under Solaris 8. Apparently they've had over a year of uptime, after switching away from IIS. (With a brief transition to Apache.) Apparently this isn't the first time the state has moved away from Microsoft.

You can also view the time line of Massachusett's involvment in the antitrust trial.

Good luck navigating our Attorney General's website - the information may be there, but it's hard to find.

On a completely unrelated tangent, the Massachusetts Government Portal runs on a Netscape Enterprise Server under Solaris 8. Apparently they've had over a year of uptime, after switching away from IIS. (With a brief transition to Apache.) Apparently this isn't the first time the state has moved away from Microsoft.

Well, not the government, a non-profit corporation chartered by act of the state legislature with no shareholders, the ability to issue debt with the guarantee of the state, and directors who are appointed by the state government (in a manner that minimizes any individual government's ability to pack the board)

Processed human waste is actually used as fertilizer. Googling for biosolids turns up plenty of links. For example:

Is Human Waste safe as fertilizer?
Wastewater sludge to biosolids fertilizer

There's a credit for taxes you paid to other states, if those states have similar credits for taxes their residents paid to MA.

Well, you never know. I just found out that a Massachussetts state Rep is trying to make "6" the official Mass. state number.

(http://www.state.ma.us/legis/history/h01304.htm )

Coincidence? Or has Michael used his *Slashdot powers* to make this happen?

If were a conspiracy person whose aluminum foil hat was on crooked, I would certainly wonder about this...

- Robin

For the curious....

Six Flags Great Adventure Park in New Jersey, which resulted in the deaths of eight (8) visitors due to their inability to immediately exit...

And there are all sorts of pages about people dying at Disneyland: The Google Search

And A pretty complete listing

But nothing about a beheading at the park though. (Allthough there have been accidents on Space Mountain).

Now that I've got my cheerleading out, check out the update on the appeal, which contains Tom Reilly's comments on it. Basically, it explains why they're pursuing a harsher punishment.

Netcraft says MA Attorney General's web site is IIS on W2K. DOH!

Read them here, or the AG's office press release here.

Also, a nice timeline/chart of the litigation is here.

Tom Reilly is a nice guy. He even shook my hand in my office! (Granted, it was really his office... that I just happen to work in, but he was still nice enough to stop by and say hi.)

It should also be noted by anyone who accuses him of doing this for votes that he ran unopposed in November's election.

Read them here, or the AG's office press release here.

Also, a nice timeline/chart of the litigation is here.

Tom Reilly is a nice guy. He even shook my hand in my office! (Granted, it was really his office... that I just happen to work in, but he was still nice enough to stop by and say hi.)

It should also be noted by anyone who accuses him of doing this for votes that he ran unopposed in November's election.

Read them here, or the AG's office press release here.

Also, a nice timeline/chart of the litigation is here.

Tom Reilly is a nice guy. He even shook my hand in my office! (Granted, it was really his office... that I just happen to work in, but he was still nice enough to stop by and say hi.)

It should also be noted by anyone who accuses him of doing this for votes that he ran unopposed in November's election.

At our Boston Public Library municipal government documents department , curator Gail Fithian fails to acquisition and accession Boston City Hall Departments' documents save the few representative specimens. Even the Boston Public Libraries Department of city government produces documentation that needs to be acquisitioned and accessioned as historic records. It's not entirely the curator's fault. Does City of Boston need a records management program?...

See also
http://www.state.ma.us/sec/arc/arcaac/aacintro.htm

Under Massachussets law, you have to yield to pedestrians, even if they're crossing against the light. Also, the operator of a motor vehicle is required to maintain safe speeds with respect to pedestrians and other traffic. Rightly so.

Traffic laws are constantly evolving, and designed to suit local needs. For instance, New York City has probably outgrown most of its laws regulating horse-and-buggies, but such laws are needed in places with large Mennonite or Amish communities. Likewise, laws regarding the use of roads for farm equipment are still relevant in rural Indiana. And in large metro areas, new bicyle laws are being passed as many young people turn to bicyles for commuting.

You claim that it is illegal because there is a law on the books which could be interpreted to allow you to be prosecuted for putting a splitter in your home.

No, I am claiming it is illegal because there is a law that specifically makes reception of cable TV signals illegal unless the person receiving them has been "specifically authorized" to do so.

Judges' interpretations of the law do vary, and some of them agree that it is the cable companies' responsibility to block the signals,

Which judges rendered that opinion and in what cases?

Until it gets taken to a court that can provide precedent, it will remain as written - an ambiguous statute.

Wait a minute. You just said that there were judges that already expressed agreement with your position. Now you are saying this matter has not been decided in a court. Which is it?

It's not an "ambiguous statute." Nor is my claim based on some weird interpretation of the law. The law is quite specific in this matter. Which part of "specifically authorized" is unclear to you?

You haven't provided any supporting evidence beyond the statute itself, which we have already agreed is open to interpretation.

It is "open to interpretation" by a judge with years of legal training, not by you. The law, as written, is clear and unambiguous. Unless it is struck down by a court, doing what you are proposing is illegal. One cannot simply ignore federal laws on the assumption that the laws will, at some future date, be reinterpreted or struck down by the court system. You said it was legal. I provided a statute that said otherwise. You provided your untrained, lay-person's opinion. I win. That's how such debates work.

(Would it help you get it if i used smaller words?)

The chances that you are my intellectual equal or superior are, statistically speaking, quite small. And since you don't even understand phrases like "expressly authorized", I doubt that your vocabulary is so great that you're going to stumble onto words that I don't know. But, if you used smaller words, perhaps you would lessen the chances of using words that you did not fully understand.

The cable company can block out the tv signal. If they fail to do so then they have no right to demand payment or damages.

That's just another unsubstantiated claim by you and it runs counter to both the federal law and long-standing legal principles. I am not interested in your legal theories.

The cable company knows exactly what is coming in to your house - as long as it doesn't affect others they have no right to tell you what to do with it, just like the electric company cannot tell you what you can or cannot plug into the outlets in your house.

This whole line of reasoning was shot down with satellite TV. Many satellite TV pirates used to claim that they had a right to use any signal that reached their property. The courts did not agree, nor did the FCC. Besides, while the cable company might know what signals are going down the cable, they also know which ones they have "expressly authorized" you to receive.

You're not - until they ask you to pay for (or take you to court over) a service they gave you for free.

You don't seem to understand the difference between civil suits and criminal trials. The statute that I cited makes it a crime to split off cable signals without paying for them. How would the court trying you for a violation of federal law make the cable company guilty of fraud?

Also, the cable company did not deliver the "service" to your home. They delivered broadband service to you and you stole cable TV by splitting off an additional cable to your television. A "signal" and a "service", as applied to cable TV, are not the same and when you turn the former into the latter without permission, it is theft. It doesn't matter if you steal cable TV by using a splitter to get basic cable or a hacked converter box to get premium channels. Either one is illegal.

I'm not the one whipping out the dictionary

Maybe you should be when you don't even understand the words you are using (i.e., "receiving")

but i doubt that you have anything better to do than argue semantics when you're talking out of your ass on a subject where you have neither experience nor evidence.

I am the one that is well aware of the federal statutes regulating this. I am the one that produced that "evidence" to show that your position was invalid -- a federal statute, in fact. All that you have done is try to impress people with your claimed insider knowledge -- yet you can produce nothing. No precedent. No contradictory law. No ruling. No point of law.

I went one step further. I called the Federal Communications Commission after my last message and was told, in no uncertain terms, that splitting off cable signals from a broadband connection in order to get basic cable at no cost was illegal. If you doubt me, call them yourself.

Want more? Here is a document from the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications & Energy which clearly supports my position and refutes yours.

So I have now provided a clearly worded statute, the FCC's interpretation of the legality of splitting off basic cable from a broadband link, and a document from the state of Massachusetts that explains, in laymen's terms, what I've been trying to tell you all along. All that you have provided is your opinion and (mis)interpretation of the law. If you can't do better than that, let's just drop this now.

There will simply be a blank driver's license space under your social security number.

I live in Massachusetts and here they have three different ID cards: liquor ID, state ID, and drivers license. I don't have a drivers license so I went out and got a state ID card. Even in Mass., I can't get into bars or buy liquor with a state ID. "But this is a STATE ISSUED ID! My birthdate is RIGHT THERE!," I say. They want a liquor ID, however, and I refuse to go spend another $50 on an ID card that I ALREADY have.

Where did you get your state ID? (And why? The only reason to get one instead of a Liquor ID is to save $10 or because you're not 21....) The RMV website page on Mass IDs and Liquor IDs says "There is a $15.00 fee for a Massachusetts ID and a $25.00 fee for a Liquor ID." Where does the $50 come in?

And you can always get a passport, which is good for 10 years, only costs $60 (plus the cost of getting photos), and is accepted by the ABCC (Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission) as an ID for liquor purchases. (See MGL 138-34B if you want a cite.) Or join the military (active duty IDs work too).

Of course, both passports and military IDs are (da-dum!) national IDs....

I live in Massachusetts and here they have three different ID cards: liquor ID, state ID, and drivers license. I don't have a drivers license so I went out and got a state ID card. Even in Mass., I can't get into bars or buy liquor with a state ID. "But this is a STATE ISSUED ID! My birthdate is RIGHT THERE!," I say. They want a liquor ID, however, and I refuse to go spend another $50 on an ID card that I ALREADY have.

Where did you get your state ID? (And why? The only reason to get one instead of a Liquor ID is to save $10 or because you're not 21....) The RMV website page on Mass IDs and Liquor IDs says "There is a $15.00 fee for a Massachusetts ID and a $25.00 fee for a Liquor ID." Where does the $50 come in?

And you can always get a passport, which is good for 10 years, only costs $60 (plus the cost of getting photos), and is accepted by the ABCC (Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission) as an ID for liquor purchases. (See MGL 138-34B if you want a cite.) Or join the military (active duty IDs work too).

Of course, both passports and military IDs are (da-dum!) national IDs....

That would be Tom Reilly.

mikeee said:
For about 10 years, the president of the state senate was the kid brother of the major local mafia boss. I kid you not...

William M. Bulger, President, University of Massachusetts
- President Bulger's Biography

pherris

The implied warranty is created by the sale, so it comes from the merchant who sold the product, not necessarily the manufacturer. This is a very fact-dependent inquiry, so I must beg-off from providing more details.

The statute is M.G.L. ch. 106 sec. 2-316A. In conjunction with M.G.L. ch. 93A secs. 2 and 9 (the Mass. Consumer Protection Statute) this law is a very powerful tool indeed. Of course, most companies employ drones who simply do not care about legal obligations like these. Luckily in Mass., Small Claims Court allows claims of up to $2,000 (it may be more now) for a filing fee of just $19.00. Sometimes, you just gotta sue.

P.S. - chapter 93A tells you the steps that MUST be followed in order to sue.

The implied warranty is created by the sale, so it comes from the merchant who sold the product, not necessarily the manufacturer. This is a very fact-dependent inquiry, so I must beg-off from providing more details.

The statute is M.G.L. ch. 106 sec. 2-316A. In conjunction with M.G.L. ch. 93A secs. 2 and 9 (the Mass. Consumer Protection Statute) this law is a very powerful tool indeed. Of course, most companies employ drones who simply do not care about legal obligations like these. Luckily in Mass., Small Claims Court allows claims of up to $2,000 (it may be more now) for a filing fee of just $19.00. Sometimes, you just gotta sue.

P.S. - chapter 93A tells you the steps that MUST be followed in order to sue.

The relevant Massachusetts statute is Massachusetts General Laws chapter 106, section 2-316A

Massachusetts will allow the purchase of alcohol only with a Massachusetts drivers license. The non-driving state ID is actaully not valid for the purchase of alcohol. The US passport or any other foreign passport is not legal for the purchase of alcohol. A New Hampshire drivers license is not valid for the purchase of alcohol.

Well, you're right about the last one, and right that a Massachusetts license is legal, but wrong about the rest.

Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 138, Section 34B:
"Any licensee, or agent or employee thereof, under this chapter who reasonably relies on such a liquor purchase identification card or motor vehicle license issued pursuant to section eight of chapter ninety, or on a valid passport issued by the United States government, or by the government, recognized by the United States government, of a foreign country, or a valid United States issued military identification card, for proof of a person's identity and age shall not suffer [...]"

So the accepted forms of ID:

• Massachusetts Driver's License
• Massachusetts Liquor ID
• US passport
• Passport issued by a diplomatically recognized government (no Sealand, no Taliban)
• US military ID (which they define as the active duty cards only--not dependent IDs

I worked for Viisage Technology for a couple of years, and they use a system in the building where two cameras scan for faces in the hallway (as you're approaching to enter) and if a face found matches one in the employee database, it unlocks the door.

It was sophisticated enough to identify me as me even when I was wearing my eyeglasses, and later, when I grew a goatee type beard and moustache. No ID code to enter, no badge to carry. If you didn't match anyone in the database, it would summon security and leave the doors locked.

Having run their Technical Support Department for 2 years, I can tell you that the products not only work, but work very well. They use the facial recognition in Massachusetts at the Department of Transitional Assistance (Welfare) offices to identify those people obtaining multiple ID's under assumed names to weed out Welfare fraud.

The kind of access system they have in their entry could be used in an airport entry to identify a suspected terrorist trying to move about the country and alert security. It's pretty close to an Orwelian concept, except this type of monitoring would definately have oversight by a committee or White House office to prevent civil rights abuses.

I personally am against the idea on principle, but sometimes one principle takes precedence over another.

I worked for Viisage Technology for a couple of years, and they use a system in the building where two cameras scan for faces in the hallway (as you're approaching to enter) and if a face found matches one in the employee database, it unlocks the door.

It was sophisticated enough to identify me as me even when I was wearing my eyeglasses, and later, when I grew a goatee type beard and moustache. No ID code to enter, no badge to carry. If you didn't match anyone in the database, it would summon security and leave the doors locked.

Having run their Technical Support Department for 2 years, I can tell you that the products not only work, but work very well. They use the facial recognition in Massachusetts at the Department of Transitional Assistance (Welfare) offices to identify those people obtaining multiple ID's under assumed names to weed out Welfare fraud.

The kind of access system they have in their entry could be used in an airport entry to identify a suspected terrorist trying to move about the country and alert security. It's pretty close to an Orwelian concept, except this type of monitoring would definately have oversight by a committee or White House office to prevent civil rights abuses.

I personally am against the idea on principle, but sometimes one principle takes precedence over another.

Did you see this page.

Apparently they've never heard of the web. Very crafty; to avoid getting citizens all uppity about their opinions, they hide them behind some ancient BBS system that may or may not even still be around.

Tell the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts what you think.

This is what Massachusetts has to say on the matter.

• The proposed law would expand eligibility for the program under which a person charged with a drug crime may request a court finding that he is drug-dependent and would benefit from court-monitored treatment. If the court so finds, and the person then successfully completes a treatment program, the criminal charges are dismissed. The proposed law would allow requests to enter this program by persons who are at risk of becoming drug dependent and by persons charged with a first or second offense of manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing a controlled substance, or possessing a controlled substance with the intent to do any of those things, or trafficking 14 to 28 grams of cocaine.

I believe when a part of a law is marked as unconstitutional, the entire law is unconstitutional.

Most bills have a clause that says if any part of the bill is determined invalid, it doesn't necessarily affect the rest of the bill. Such as this example from the recent Massachusetts ballot questions:

The provisions of this law are severable, and if any clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this chapter, or an application thereof, shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section or application adjudged invalid.

I am the Raxis.

Um, but: duh.

There is a regulatory body which exists to protect consumers from the fraud and force of utility corporations. They are, in Massachusetts, the Department of Telecommunications and Energy. Yes, they take complaints from the public. They even have an on-line submission form if you want to lodge a compaint with them.

I just called them. See my other post in this thread for more info.

Greetings, Hemos, and welcome to Boston!

Slamming is quite illegal. If you have the bill in hand which demonstrates you have been slammed, report them to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy -- Consumer Division. The DTE is the regulatory body which governs utility companies. (I worked for them once, and oh, the stories I can tell...)

I just called the MA DTE on the phone (617 727-3531) and asked them: They said that if more than 20 people complained, a fine might be assessed against the slamming company. They also keep stats on slams.

As it happens, I just switched from AT&T to MCI/WorldCom. In the course of doing this I discovered that Verizon (my local bell) has an optional free feature, whereby they will not change your long distance service unless you personally call them up and authorize it; they make you testify to a 3rd party verification service (who tapes you) that you want your service change. Ask MediaOne if they will do it; I bet they will.

In any event: IFF you cannot get satisfaction on a (any) dispute with your phone (or gas, or electricity) co. after contacting them directly, then contact the DTE. On your phone bill, usually on the back of the first page, you will find a phone number for the DTE Consumer Division, or you may file a complaint electronically here. You must try to iron things out with the company directly, first, then the DTE will talk to you.

Greetings, Hemos, and welcome to Boston!

Slamming is quite illegal. If you have the bill in hand which demonstrates you have been slammed, report them to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy -- Consumer Division. The DTE is the regulatory body which governs utility companies. (I worked for them once, and oh, the stories I can tell...)

I just called the MA DTE on the phone (617 727-3531) and asked them: They said that if more than 20 people complained, a fine might be assessed against the slamming company. They also keep stats on slams.

As it happens, I just switched from AT&T to MCI/WorldCom. In the course of doing this I discovered that Verizon (my local bell) has an optional free feature, whereby they will not change your long distance service unless you personally call them up and authorize it; they make you testify to a 3rd party verification service (who tapes you) that you want your service change. Ask MediaOne if they will do it; I bet they will.

In any event: IFF you cannot get satisfaction on a (any) dispute with your phone (or gas, or electricity) co. after contacting them directly, then contact the DTE. On your phone bill, usually on the back of the first page, you will find a phone number for the DTE Consumer Division, or you may file a complaint electronically here. You must try to iron things out with the company directly, first, then the DTE will talk to you.