Slashdot Mirror

Technology is giving us new tools for teaching - from the Internet to televisions in the classroom. In 1980, teachers showed their students decades-old educational films. In 1990, teachers showed their students months-old educational videos. Now, with educational TV and Internet content, teachers can show their students news as it breaks.

A century ago, wealthy families would spend huge sums so tutors could pay individual attention to a student. Now we can envision a day when all students get individual attention, from computerized teaching systems that have instant access to information unobtainable scant years ago.

Already there are online - and accredited - high school and university classes. Soon, neither work nor age nor location will impede your continuing education.

What's more, technology is not just changing how we learn, but what we learn. As others here have noted, we're moving to a system wherein the teaching of information literacy is becoming more common. But what does that mean? Does it merely mean the ability to navigate your way to the information you need? Or does it mean we will become know-nothings, unable to make the simple associations of knowledge that are possible when facts have been crammed into our mind by brute force? Santayana famously said that those who are not familiar with history are "doomed to repeat it"; if you don't know history, but merely know where to find it, are you doomed to repeat it? It's up in the air.

We have a number of articles on this topic on our Education page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

If anyone wishes to send their comments to the Copyright Office in PDF format, I would be glad to save your message in PDF format and send it back to you so you can send it on to the Copyright Office. As the EFF site notes, PDF is not required by the Copyright Office, but it is "preferred."

If you wish, we'll also make suggestions for how you can improve your comments for maximum effect.

Just send your message to:
Copyright_reply@hotmail.com

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

Last week (8 Mar 00) I spoke by telephone with Ian McCallum, who is in TopClick's Market Development group. Basically, I wanted to know how TopClick planned on making money, since we intended to feature them on our Personal Security page.

Ian explained that TopClick believes there is a substantial segment of the Net population concerned with privacy, and that at least part of that segment would be willing to pay for services that protect privacy. Thus, while the search engine will remain free, TopClick will charge for other products they plan on rolling out (such as AllowMail, which another poster mentioned).

A previous poster mentioned that he thought the name TopClick sounds particularly cheesey. While I'm not certain, I suspect that the name is intended to raise the specter of DoubleClick in your mind. Certainly for anyone concerned for their privacy, DoubleClick is never far from mind.

So basically, the deal is this: the company seems to sincerely believe (in Mr. McCallum's words) "that every single member of the online community has an inherent and indisputable right to privacy on the Internet." They are going to work to educate the Net population, through their comprehensive Privacy Center. And they believe they are among the first of a (hopefully long) stream of companies that will prove wrong all those naysayers who cluck that privacy and profit are incompatible.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Last week (8 Mar 00) I spoke by telephone with Ian McCallum, who is in TopClick's Market Development group. Basically, I wanted to know how TopClick planned on making money, since we intended to feature them on our Personal Security page.

Ian explained that TopClick believes there is a substantial segment of the Net population concerned with privacy, and that at least part of that segment would be willing to pay for services that protect privacy. Thus, while the search engine will remain free, TopClick will charge for other products they plan on rolling out (such as AllowMail, which another poster mentioned).

A previous poster mentioned that he thought the name TopClick sounds particularly cheesey. While I'm not certain, I suspect that the name is intended to raise the specter of DoubleClick in your mind. Certainly for anyone concerned for their privacy, DoubleClick is never far from mind.

So basically, the deal is this: the company seems to sincerely believe (in Mr. McCallum's words) "that every single member of the online community has an inherent and indisputable right to privacy on the Internet." They are going to work to educate the Net population, through their comprehensive Privacy Center. And they believe they are among the first of a (hopefully long) stream of companies that will prove wrong all those naysayers who cluck that privacy and profit are incompatible.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Again, Mr. Katz's depiction of the problem is unfair and unbalanced.

The heart of the problem was addressed by several people in their responses to the first part of Katz's post (yesterday). It is this:

How can the needs of consumers and the needs of creators be balanced?

In other words, how can companies, artists, authors and other creators get a return on their investment of time and money, so they do not lose the incentive to go on creating? If Stephen King's new Internet novel is circulated via e-mail and mirrored on Web sites, he loses money and may never publish online again. If a database company finds its databases copied and republished for profit (which is legal today, strangely) that company will lose the incentive to keep making databases. And when the creators stop creating, everyone loses out.

"Piracy" isn't a very accurate term for what amounts to a bloodless file download

No, it isn't a very accurate term. Many people don't like to think of themselves as pirates and thieves when they download music illicitly over the Web. (I don't like to think of myself that way, although the RIAA would probably be upset at my hard drive's contents.) But nobody says the term "pirate" need only apply to patch-wearing, parrot-loving, peg-legged sailors. Periods of great technological change often leave language lagging behind, and I suggest rather than criticizing the word, Katz criticize the idea.

Is the Internet so insecure (by its very nature, as Katz's citation of Lessig yesterday implied) that ideas are forced to flow freely? I highly doubt it. Technology has a way of solving problems technology creates. Creators will find new ways of creating artificial obstacles online that serve the same purpose as the physical obstacles that prevent theft: to make sure money is collected.

The notion of free music threatens the way they work -- which is why the DMCA was passed, and why the music industry is spending tens of millions to shut down free music sites on the Web.

Yes, that's true. And the music industry's behavior (like the movie industry's behavior in the DVD/DeCSS debacle, or the TV industry's behavior in the iCRAVE case) has been thuggish. Certainly these old-fashioned, slow-learning industries should be thankful for the Web pioneers who have shown them that there exists a market for new means of transmitting the products of creative work. But they needn't genuflect before the new medium and allow it to endanger their livelihood. And that is what it does, all the misleading talk about $15 billion made by the music industry last year aside. (After all, how do we know the recording industry mightn't have made $16 were it not for MP3s?) When you download music illegally over the Internet, you are depriving someone of the potential for profit. No, you haven't broken in to their house, but you have in essence robbed their checkbook of what it might hold tomorrow.

Look, clearly we're in a period of technological change, and it is profoundly affected every (every!) segment of society. But notice that Katz proposes NO SOLUTIONS to this intellectual property problem, except that creators entirely give up any claim over what we consider intellectual property. In other words, Katz would throw out something we should cherish because we recognized it all too recently in human history: that people who create things deserve to earn from their creativity, in the same way that a farmer or bricklayer should earn from his labor.

What is the one thing Katz proposes? This:

A rational legislature grasping this will would seek laws that reflect the new reality, rather than an outdated one.

In other words, Congress (which he just accused of screwing up copyright law) should stick its hands in copyright law AGAIN, presumably after they become "rational." Fortunately, Congress is designed to be a slow-moving, deliberative body, unresponsive to minor gusts of political wind. Let us hope that they do not take the advice of Katz and others who demand more governmental meddling. Instead, let's allow the process to develop slowly, over time. Strong case law and protracted public committment to technology are better protections than legislative interference.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

This discussion is quite similar to another thread posted today about the Human Genome Project. In my post on that other thread (click here) I propose that a new category of patent be created, so researchers can have control over (and profit from) their data but only for a very limited time. That way, they can deservedly benefit financially from their investment of time and money (an incredible contribution to genomic research) while researchers' desire to have all genomic research freely available will only be put off briefly.

Incidentally, if you are interested in reading other articles about the genome patent controversy, we have a collection on our Biotechnology page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

This discussion is quite similar to another thread posted today about the Human Genome Project. In my post on that other thread (click here) I propose that a new category of patent be created, so researchers can have control over (and profit from) their data but only for a very limited time. That way, they can deservedly benefit financially from their investment of time and money (an incredible contribution to genomic research) while researchers' desire to have all genomic research freely available will only be put off briefly.

Incidentally, if you are interested in reading other articles about the genome patent controversy, we have a collection on our Biotechnology page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

As others have pointed out, the Human Genome Project data have been publicly available all along anyway. Many researchers have already enjoyed the opportunity to begin working from those data.

But the larger question is whether the private firms will be forced to relinquish their data. The CNN story says nothing about that.

Someone else mentioned Celera, and quoted a story from Wired's website. Celera is, by far, not the only company pursuing patents on genomic data. Other companies (with thousands more patents applied for) include HGS, Incyte and Athersys. (You can read about their efforts on our Biotech page.)

My proposal: Create a new class of patent with a shorter lifespan that will allow these companies to rightly profit from their research (which has helped the public project immensely). This is rather like Jeff Bezos's proposal for Amazon patents; a new category with fewer years of monopoly so innovators can still benefit from their work and their investments, while the public will still benefit in the not-too-distant future.

Is that fair? I know many here on /. don't buy the notion of compromise (ever), but lots of you are eminently fair-minded. Is my proposal unreasonable?

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

As others have pointed out, the Human Genome Project data have been publicly available all along anyway. Many researchers have already enjoyed the opportunity to begin working from those data.

But the larger question is whether the private firms will be forced to relinquish their data. The CNN story says nothing about that.

Someone else mentioned Celera, and quoted a story from Wired's website. Celera is, by far, not the only company pursuing patents on genomic data. Other companies (with thousands more patents applied for) include HGS, Incyte and Athersys. (You can read about their efforts on our Biotech page.)

My proposal: Create a new class of patent with a shorter lifespan that will allow these companies to rightly profit from their research (which has helped the public project immensely). This is rather like Jeff Bezos's proposal for Amazon patents; a new category with fewer years of monopoly so innovators can still benefit from their work and their investments, while the public will still benefit in the not-too-distant future.

Is that fair? I know many here on /. don't buy the notion of compromise (ever), but lots of you are eminently fair-minded. Is my proposal unreasonable?

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Katz is right to point out that the very notion of intellectual property is under siege. I suspect he underestimates its resilience, however.

By quoting one Congressional aide (from among thousands and thousands), Katz supposedly gives us the point of view of the Old Guard. Concerned with things like theft and stealing and morality, such people seem not to understand (as Katz and many /.ers have argued) that the social shift going on here is vast, and that the technology itself is a driving force - not merely a "culture of thievery."

But that is not a fair representation of the Old Guard view. During my time in Washington, I've witnessed firsthand the plans and desires of trade groups and corporations concerned with the protection of intellectual property. Their paramount objective is not to quash the Internet and destroy the free flow of information - in fact, they see in information's freedom a tremendous opportunity for profit.

But information cannot be totally free, they argue. There must be some obstacle to reaching information (whether you mean literature or movies or economic data when you say the word "information"). That obstacle is the one where money is made.

Artists who cannot make money (and thereby feed themselves) will cease to be artists. Companies that collect economic data and publish it will no longer have an incentive to continue working. If information was totally free and Lexis-Nexis freely available to everyone, then the company that runs Lexis-Nexis (Reed-Elsevier) would no longer have a reason to run it. And not every business model can operate like Britannica's; it is not always possible to offer all your content and information online by slathering advertisements upon it. (And we should be glad of that.)

Theft is certainly a big fear, but the corporate and creative interests I've encountered here in Washington, D.C. are well aware that there may soon be technological solutions to technological problems. Lessig's book has been frequently misinterpreted (and perhaps here so by Katz) as arguing that nothing can be done counter to the code that defines cyberspace. But of course that code can be changed and built upon, and new methods of protecting intellectual property will be developed.

The traditional systems of protecting intellectual property have bequeathed upon us a rich history of invention and a marvelous universe of creativity which we must not squander by assuming that "anything goes." We must not arrogantly believe that recent technological changes completely undermine the value of safeguarding intellectual property. Certainly, the old system is under threat - the DMCA/DVD/DeCSS madness, the Amazon patent tribulations, even the debate over genome patents, all these prove that we must reconsider how we think about intellectual property.

But we needn't scrap our old notions entirely, in a rush to judgment we might regret later.

I look forward to the second half of Katz's post.

A. Keiper

The Center for the Study of Technology and Socety

This is being blown all out of proportion! I can't stand all the irrational spy-bashing that's been going on lately. Intelligence collection is not evil, but America's anti-secret, anti-disagreement attitude (combined with, of course, the real history of abuses by the intelligence community) has made us all lose sight of the incredible importance of intelligence collection.

Collecting economic intelligence is completely understandable - after all, economic crises are an incredible threat to the U.S. Collecting economic intelligence makes perfect sense; it can help us prepare for and manage economic catastrophe long before it happens.

Keep in mind that most of the information is OSINT (open source intelligence), and not intelligence obtained by spying. To quote the article: "Whether economic or military, most US intelligence data came from open sources, [Woolsey] said. But 'five percent is essentially secrets that we steal. We steal secrets with espionage, with communications, with reconnaissance satellites.'

The five percent he's talking about is the five percent of intelligence collected overall.

Let's get this straight: industrial espionage is illegal, and it does not happen. A huge part of the reason it is forbidden is that since business is international now, half the time you think you're helping an "American" business, you're actually helping a business abroad.

Illegal industrial espionage is produced for private businesses, but legal economic espionage is for policymakers. There are reasons of practice and politics and law and ethics that prohibit the U.S. from committing industrial espionge.

Meanwhile industrial espionage is committed by other countries - including Russia, China, France and Japan.

And, in case you're wondering, the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 makes industrial espionage against U.S. companies illegal. It used to be illegal in some states, but now the theft of trade secrets is illegal throughout the U.S.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

The Center for the Study of Technology and Society has a Biotechnology page which has links to lots of relevant stories and articles and other sites.

You can reach it here:
http://www.tecsoc.org/biotech/biotech.htm

Also, we have a brief "What is Biotechnology?" essay which explores some of the most important issues in that area.

A. Keiper

The Center for the Study of Technology and Society has a Biotechnology page which has links to lots of relevant stories and articles and other sites.

You can reach it here:
http://www.tecsoc.org/biotech/biotech.htm

Also, we have a brief "What is Biotechnology?" essay which explores some of the most important issues in that area.

A. Keiper

The Center for the Study of Technology and Society has a Biotechnology page which has links to lots of relevant stories and articles and other sites.

You can reach it here:
http://www.tecsoc.org/biotech/biotech.htm

Also, we have a brief "What is Biotechnology?" essay which explores some of the most important issues in that area.

A. Keiper

Two points of preface. First, as others have said, congratulations to the /.ers who leapt at the chance to comment to the Copyright Office on this matter. Second, you can be assured that the Copyright Office is going to seriously consider the comments, which were largely very well thought out.

I'd like to point out some brief excerpts from three of the comments. Others have rightly complimented the EFF comments - which we can probably assume will be a good indication of at least part of the approach EFF's team will use in the courtroom.

The heart of the EFF comment is this:

Hence, any "unauthorized descrambling" or viewing of DVDs constitutes a violation under the DMCA. Bypassing the wisdom of copyright law's First Sale Rule which terminates the author's right to control what happens to a particular work after its first sale, systems such as CSS effectively assert control over a DVD forever... [T]he Librarian should consider whether or not the technological protection measure actually protects a right afforded by a copyright holder, (such as copying, distribution, adaptation, public display/performance), or whether the system is designed to limit a consumer's legitimate use of media (such as viewing). ... [T]he DVD format should be exempted as a class of works under the DMCA's anticircumvention provisions.

Second, the MPAA comments are extremely revealing - and will probably be important in the courtroom, too. In essence, they argue that CSS gives them important protection against more than just piracy:

Access control technologies are used, for example, to permit access to a work for a limited period (such as a free demonstration or "test drive" period, or the duration of a license agreement) while closing it thereafter. These techniques are also employed to allow access to part of a work while denying it to another part; to enable access by a specified category of users but not by another category; or to enable access by a specified number of simultaneous users but no more.

And, the third (and final) excerpt I want to quote is this, from the Computer and Communications Industry Association. They point out an absurd conclusion that the law might lead to if there is is not a broad protection for interoperability.

[A]t some point in the near future computer programs will be distributed on DVDs. Would reverse engineering CSS to permit these programs to run on Linux be permitted under the DMCA as enacted, or would the exception not apply because the decryption software would also allow the running of movies? To eliminate the possibility of this absurd result, reverse engineering for the purpose of permitting all forms interoperability -- and not just between computer software -- should be permitted.

Now, here's what happens next. The court cases are going to proceed - which I think is plainly thuggish behavior on the part of the MPAA and the Copy Control Authority. Court procedures are slow, but so is the regulatory process. It is conceivable that some of the court cases will be in the appeal stage before the Copyright Office makes any final decision.

Slashdot users can do two things:

• 1. Send reply comments to the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office gives until March 20 to reply to those comments. I know that isn't a lot of time, but if you have some spare hours this weekend, you might want to jot something down. Some of your comments in this discussion could almost directly go to the Copyright Office - like
• DavidOgg's comment, which gets right to the heart of things.
  
  The rules for sending reply comments appear here. If anyone is unclear about how to send these reply comments, or wants to send their comments in PDF format (which is not necessary), I would be willing to help clean them up or convert them to PDF and send them on to the Copyright Office as a service to the /. community. I have set up a special Hotmail address (copyright_reply@hotmail.com to serve as a dropbox, and I'll contact anyone who seriously wants help.

  2. Keep fighting the battle of public opinion. Most people don't know anything about this issue, and those who have heard of it largely don't grasp its importance. Tell your friends and family - and, if you can, write letters to your local newspaper. Anything you can do to move the battle from the online world to meatspace will help.

This is going to be a long fight.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Check out the C|Net version of the story or the Wired version and you'll see that the goverment is still at least considering new rules and regulations - including some that would severely threaten the online anonymity we all take for granted.

You can read the DOJ report for yourself here. CNN is somewhat correct - it does say that "existing substantive federal laws appear to be generally adequate." However, it emphasizes the dangers to security posed by anonymity, and it does not shut the door on new laws.

We've got an archive of other related articles on our Law Enforcement Online page.

A. Keiper

Right now, it's really hard to predict what the effects of Net access around the world will be. There are ISPs popping up all over, but their services are incredibly expensive - understandably, since the necessary infrastructure for reliable service is not yet in place.

Just look at the Net access numbers. Less than 0.7 percent of the Arab world is online. South Africa and the Seychelles are the only parts of Africa with more than one percent penetration. The numbers aren't all that much better for South America, and, significantly, the world's most populous countries, China and India, lag behind the rest of Asia.

These percentages are not all that revealing, though. The important thing is the percentage of new Net users is climbing. In all those areas, the number of people with Net access is small, but the rate of increase is impressive.

Because of the infrastructure problems, only those who can afford Net access in each country spend money getting online. That means that only the very wealthy can reap the benefits of interconnectedness in those places - so, to answer your question, one of the early effects of Net access in many of these countries has been (and will continue be) the exacerbation of class disparities. We can only hope that will change, as Net access gets cheaper - but it will be terribly cruel for years as the impoverished around the globe see the fruits of the Net dangling in front of them, just beyond grasp.

There are other interesting implications, like the effects on cultural understanding. James Burke commented in an interview some years ago that he hoped the Internet would have the effect of forcing Americans to see how different the rest of the world is. I haven't noticed the kind of cultural broadening he imagined, but it may be forced upon other nations. So much of the Internet is in English, and so many important services and products originate in the English-speaking world, that late-comers to the Net may find their cultural identity under attack. One hopes that cultural-specific Net services will arise to meet their needs.

And, finally, there is little evidence as yet of the Net's liberalizing political influence. In fact, we are still in the awful early stage, where countries like China are placing stringent restrictions on Net access and are deciding which Web sites are acceptable for their population. Hopefully, this will diminish with time, but it is possible that these regimes may just grow more desperate as their control of information wanes - and desperation can lead to dangerous unpredictability.

We've got some more articles posted on our Equity page.

A. Keiper

Katz, O Katz, O Katz, O Katz - How hast thou gone wrong? Let me count the ways...

1.

... unlike ordinary radio and TV broadcasters, Webcasters must pay royalties to record companies. Webcasts are limited to three songs from one album in any three-hour period.

This is false. Radio stations - like TV stations, cable networks, etc. - need to get licenses from performing rights groups like ASCAP or BMI. Even businesses and restaurants larger than a certain size (2000 sq. ft. and 3750 sq. ft., respectively) need to get licenses. Those licenses are not free - they are bought for millions of dollars sometimes, and the money from their purchase goes to the songwriters and performers.

2.

[The DMCA] also dramatically restricts the right of individual artists to have their works seen, heard and sold. That makes it a First Amendment as well as a corporate issue.

Well, duh. All copyright laws are First Amendment issues in part. All of them. Why? Because copyright laws are inherently about what you can and cannot do and say. The DMCA is no more especially a First Amendment matter than any other copyright law.

And recognizing that there are free-speech issues involved, the DMCA (like other copyright acts) leaves intact the "Fair Use" doctrine, which permits the use of copyrighted material for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.

3.

[The DMCA is] a back-door effort by lobbyists and politicians to circumvent debate or discussion entirely.

First of all, calling it a "back-door effort" ignores the facts that there were lobbyists and politicians on both sides of every part of the issue, and that comments and input were solicited from the online community and libraries and computer makers. What's more, some of the Act's provisions had been discussed and debated internationally, as part of a World Intellectual Property Organization treaty - and were first publicized years and years ago. Calling it secretive or "back-door" is plain inaccurate.

4.

... blind copyright protection that in no way takes into account the Net's unique nature, nor the rights and sensibilities of a generation that defines culture differently.

This is nonsensical. How is the DMCA "blind"? The point of the law, whether you like it or not, is that it does take into account the Net's unique nature, by recognizing that the Net can be used to disseminate information instantly everywhere. It isn't blind: it tries to stop some of that information from just disappearing into the ether, possibly leaving creators unpaid. What do you mean this generation "defines culture differently"? Every generation defines culture differently, and (if you'll allow me to follow your logic to its natural conclusion) every person defines culture differently. This is not a culture gap, and there is no acceptable reason for lawmakers, musicians and other copyright holders to be held hostage by people who don't want to pay for anything.

5.

Corporatism isn't the same as capitalism, or corporations. It's new, bigger, more global and vastly more powerful. It has acquired most mainstream media. It is the primary contributor to the political system.

Like the theory of phlogiston, your argument here sounds great. But, like the theory of phlogiston, there is not a great deal of empirical evidence to back it up. First of all, your statement about "mainstream media" is circular since you are defining mainstream media as "those media which are owned by corporations." Second, the primary contributor to the political system, in terms of money and in terms of vocal input, is the ordinary voting population; it contributes more money than any other contributing segment. In fact, even though nobody talks about this, corporations are not allowed to support candidates for federal office.

6.

... corporatism discourages creativity, pushes individuals to the margins and promotes conformity and control of software, hardware, intellectual content and culture.

O, Katz, come on. Compare the words you use for corporations (discourages, pushes, conformity, control, rampaging, drooling) with the words you use for geeks (free, diverse, individualized, unprecedented, unique). What propaganda!

Things are a whole lot more complicated than that. First of all, you refuse to admit the positive effects of the corporate control you so disdain. Thanks to AOL, 20 million people are online. Thanks to Microsoft, lots of confused non-techies are able to use these machines we take for granted. Thanks to WalMart, people have access to more and cheaper products.

How you can claim this is not capitalism is beyond me. With the exception of monopolistic behavior (the integrated-browswer debate is not worth getting into here), each of these companies is behaving as capitalist firms should - by offering products and services that consumers are drawn to.

What's more, it's ridiculous to cast corporations as an Evil Empire trying to crush the plucky, charming geeks who can see how "culture" is changing around them. Even as the Net lets people express themselves more individually, it also spreads a common culture, full of common language and terms and beliefs which can themselves become tyrannical. Before writing "Geeks," you should have sat down and read some Alexis de Tocqueville.

7.

The belief that even if laws restrict the Net, innovative software and hardware will triumph, is pervasive. The DMCA suggests that may be wishful thinking.

I disagree here again. Technology is extraordinarily powerful, and right now, it is shaping the law - not the other way around. (And if you believe Lawrence Lessig, in many ways, the technology is the law.) I expect that trend will continue for several decades.

8.

The primary political struggle of the 21st Century -- corporatism versus individualism -- has erupted right under our noses. And with little political consciousness or response, we seem to be losing the first big battle.

First of all, to claim that "corporatism versus individualism" is the "primary political struggle" of the next century demonstrates as much a sense of history as the people who called the O.J. Simpson trial the "trial of the century." Life always ends up amazingly unlike what we had supposed.

Second, again, you are unwilling to see political activism by geeks because you are defining "geeks" circularly - as those who are not politically active. There are many people, including many people here in Washington, D.C., who share the political and technological views of geeks, and are fighting every day to prevent new dumb laws from being passed. Most people are not politically conscious - not just geeks - and that's a wonderful thing. It's a sign of our freedom and safety. The places where political cognizance is a necessary good are places like Chechnya or Somalia or Cuba or China, where a lack of political sense can land you in jail.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

I was able to think of four companies which, between them, have applied for 40,000 patents on parts of the human genome. Let's hope the patent offices do some serious rethinking about how biotech patents are offered. (There's an archive of related articles here.)

I recently suggested that maybe a new temporary patent should be developed for a certain class of biotech discoveries, so companies can still profit from their research but not at the cost of new research. While I usually eschew nutty suggestions for new "classifications" and paperwork, I really can't come up with any other simple solution.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

I was able to think of four companies which, between them, have applied for 40,000 patents on parts of the human genome. Let's hope the patent offices do some serious rethinking about how biotech patents are offered. (There's an archive of related articles here.)

I recently suggested that maybe a new temporary patent should be developed for a certain class of biotech discoveries, so companies can still profit from their research but not at the cost of new research. While I usually eschew nutty suggestions for new "classifications" and paperwork, I really can't come up with any other simple solution.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

I was able to think of four companies which, between them, have applied for 40,000 patents on parts of the human genome. Let's hope the patent offices do some serious rethinking about how biotech patents are offered. (There's an archive of related articles here.)

I recently suggested that maybe a new temporary patent should be developed for a certain class of biotech discoveries, so companies can still profit from their research but not at the cost of new research. While I usually eschew nutty suggestions for new "classifications" and paperwork, I really can't come up with any other simple solution.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

All these recent copyright troubles are only one part of a much larger question -- How can intellectual property make sense in an Information Age?

The copyright war, which is still but neonatal, is one aspect of that problem. The National Research Council recently studied copyright and came up with no good solution for the problems Katz mentioned. They did conclude their report with an intriguing thought: perhaps we should rethink the notion of basing our intellectual property tradition on something like "copying" (as in "copyright") since information technologies completely change what copying is. (Click here for their press release.)

Copyright is just one part of something bigger; trademarks and patents, also ways of protecting intellectual property, are drastically changing too.

As far as patents go, consider the efforts of Amazon to patent its one-click shopping process (as has been amply discussed here on /.) and the efforts of companies like Celera, Incyte, HGS and Athersys to obtain thousands of patents on the human genome. (Click here for more on that problem, which is only partly related to information technology.) As someone appropriately said, were Columbus around today, he would try to patent America.

I know less about trademarks, but I understand there are parallel problems in that arena.

The solution doesn't seem to me to be corporation-bashing. (Indeed, having worked in the lobbying department of The McGraw-Hill Companies, I got to see how earnestly corporations care about keeping information accessible while still turning a profit.) Instead, we should do some real hard thinking about how intellectual property can survive in the Information Age -- and we should keep fighting against ridiculous cases, like the DeCSS case, brought on by people who just don't realize what a period of tremendous change this is.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

All these recent copyright troubles are only one part of a much larger question -- How can intellectual property make sense in an Information Age?

The copyright war, which is still but neonatal, is one aspect of that problem. The National Research Council recently studied copyright and came up with no good solution for the problems Katz mentioned. They did conclude their report with an intriguing thought: perhaps we should rethink the notion of basing our intellectual property tradition on something like "copying" (as in "copyright") since information technologies completely change what copying is. (Click here for their press release.)

Copyright is just one part of something bigger; trademarks and patents, also ways of protecting intellectual property, are drastically changing too.

As far as patents go, consider the efforts of Amazon to patent its one-click shopping process (as has been amply discussed here on /.) and the efforts of companies like Celera, Incyte, HGS and Athersys to obtain thousands of patents on the human genome. (Click here for more on that problem, which is only partly related to information technology.) As someone appropriately said, were Columbus around today, he would try to patent America.

I know less about trademarks, but I understand there are parallel problems in that arena.

The solution doesn't seem to me to be corporation-bashing. (Indeed, having worked in the lobbying department of The McGraw-Hill Companies, I got to see how earnestly corporations care about keeping information accessible while still turning a profit.) Instead, we should do some real hard thinking about how intellectual property can survive in the Information Age -- and we should keep fighting against ridiculous cases, like the DeCSS case, brought on by people who just don't realize what a period of tremendous change this is.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

All these recent copyright troubles are only one part of a much larger question -- How can intellectual property make sense in an Information Age?

The copyright war, which is still but neonatal, is one aspect of that problem. The National Research Council recently studied copyright and came up with no good solution for the problems Katz mentioned. They did conclude their report with an intriguing thought: perhaps we should rethink the notion of basing our intellectual property tradition on something like "copying" (as in "copyright") since information technologies completely change what copying is. (Click here for their press release.)

Copyright is just one part of something bigger; trademarks and patents, also ways of protecting intellectual property, are drastically changing too.

As far as patents go, consider the efforts of Amazon to patent its one-click shopping process (as has been amply discussed here on /.) and the efforts of companies like Celera, Incyte, HGS and Athersys to obtain thousands of patents on the human genome. (Click here for more on that problem, which is only partly related to information technology.) As someone appropriately said, were Columbus around today, he would try to patent America.

I know less about trademarks, but I understand there are parallel problems in that arena.

The solution doesn't seem to me to be corporation-bashing. (Indeed, having worked in the lobbying department of The McGraw-Hill Companies, I got to see how earnestly corporations care about keeping information accessible while still turning a profit.) Instead, we should do some real hard thinking about how intellectual property can survive in the Information Age -- and we should keep fighting against ridiculous cases, like the DeCSS case, brought on by people who just don't realize what a period of tremendous change this is.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

The Clinton Administration has been extremely schizophrenic in its attempts to create and apply law enforcement policy on the Web. Compare this recent less-anonymity kick with its long-time no-strong-crypto stance. One one hand, the Administration wants communications to be less secure , more open to law enforcement prying. On the other hand (especially after the recent DDoS attacks) the Administration has been warning businesses to be as secure as possible . That seems pretty contradictory. Let's hope this less-anonymity idea was just being floated, and not seriously considered at any level.

We've just posted an archive of related articles (and we welcome any contributions you have) on our Law Enforcement Online page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

The Clinton Administration has been extremely schizophrenic in its attempts to create and apply law enforcement policy on the Web. Compare this recent less-anonymity kick with its long-time no-strong-crypto stance. One one hand, the Administration wants communications to be less secure , more open to law enforcement prying. On the other hand (especially after the recent DDoS attacks) the Administration has been warning businesses to be as secure as possible . That seems pretty contradictory. Let's hope this less-anonymity idea was just being floated, and not seriously considered at any level.

We've just posted an archive of related articles (and we welcome any contributions you have) on our Law Enforcement Online page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

The Clinton Administration has been extremely schizophrenic in its attempts to create and apply law enforcement policy on the Web. Compare this recent less-anonymity kick with its long-time no-strong-crypto stance. One one hand, the Administration wants communications to be less secure , more open to law enforcement prying. On the other hand (especially after the recent DDoS attacks) the Administration has been warning businesses to be as secure as possible . That seems pretty contradictory. Let's hope this less-anonymity idea was just being floated, and not seriously considered at any level.

We've just posted an archive of related articles (and we welcome any contributions you have) on our Law Enforcement Online page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

A major battle is brewing over infrastructure (especially Net) security, as law enforcement officials clamor for stronger laws and businesses demand government keep its clumsy hands off.

The most serious problem, however, is that politicians and policymakers here in Washington do not grasp even the most basic technical ideas propelling the information revolution.

In other words, the conspiracy theorists who long believed that the government would use Y2K (and the Y2K "bunker") as an excuse to dismantle American institutions had it backwards: we are not in danger of elite or intelligence government agents making decisions, we are in danger because the government is financially and technologically muscular, but philosophically and intellectually malnourished.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

A major battle is brewing over infrastructure (especially Net) security, as law enforcement officials clamor for stronger laws and businesses demand government keep its clumsy hands off.

The most serious problem, however, is that politicians and policymakers here in Washington do not grasp even the most basic technical ideas propelling the information revolution.

In other words, the conspiracy theorists who long believed that the government would use Y2K (and the Y2K "bunker") as an excuse to dismantle American institutions had it backwards: we are not in danger of elite or intelligence government agents making decisions, we are in danger because the government is financially and technologically muscular, but philosophically and intellectually malnourished.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Just in case anyone comes back to this discussion (which has long since quieted), it seems NASA has taken satellite images of the aurora effect on Earth caused by the recent solar events. See here.

I wish more people on /. went around the site and tried to put up "last posts" instead of "firsts." How fun would that be?!

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

There are a number of companies already looking to make some money by designing protocols that protect personal or corporate e-mail. (By "protect," I mean, "destroy after a certain period.") One such company, calling itself "Disappearing Inc." is offering a self-destructing e-mail protocol, so your message is intact from birth till it deletes itself - and can never be saved or backed up.

We've got links to several related stories on our Personal Security page: http://www.tecsoc.org/persec/persec.htm

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

There are a number of companies already looking to make some money by designing protocols that protect personal or corporate e-mail. (By "protect," I mean, "destroy after a certain period.") One such company, calling itself "Disappearing Inc." is offering a self-destructing e-mail protocol, so your message is intact from birth till it deletes itself - and can never be saved or backed up.

We've got links to several related stories on our Personal Security page: http://www.tecsoc.org/persec/persec.htm

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

At the heart of the problem is this: government officials want to take the template of institutions that we have in meatspace and force it upon cyberspace - not recognizing the enormously detrimental effects that might have.

You see it in lots of arenas:

1. Net taxes. Even though the Congress said no decisions should be made until the Advisory Commission on E-Commerce made its recommendation(s), the President is meddling already. Here, the pro-tax politicians want to insert a tax code designed for the Great Depression on the Internet! That makes no sense!

2. Intellectual property. As everyone on Slashdot knows, the government and major corporations aren't ready to reexamine the idea of "copyright," because they don't see that the notion of "copying" has completely changed in the information age.

3. Law enforcement. News is out this morning from Wired (click here) that law enforcement officials are considering reducing the amount of anonymity (and pseudonymity, one presumes) Net users can enjoy.

4. Equity. Based on data several years old, the government is spending $2 billion (!!!) to help close the digital divide. Using the "chicken in every pot" mentality of FDR (and later LBJ), they intend to "solve" the problems of technological inequality, not realizing how slow, late and meaningless their action is.

There are dozens more examples, but the point is this: the pace of innovation is leaving policymakers in the dust, and they are going to keep making uninformed decisions that may plague us for years . Our only recourse is an intensive campaign to educate them in the new realities, while respecting how difficult this period of transition will be.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

At the heart of the problem is this: government officials want to take the template of institutions that we have in meatspace and force it upon cyberspace - not recognizing the enormously detrimental effects that might have.

You see it in lots of arenas:

1. Net taxes. Even though the Congress said no decisions should be made until the Advisory Commission on E-Commerce made its recommendation(s), the President is meddling already. Here, the pro-tax politicians want to insert a tax code designed for the Great Depression on the Internet! That makes no sense!

2. Intellectual property. As everyone on Slashdot knows, the government and major corporations aren't ready to reexamine the idea of "copyright," because they don't see that the notion of "copying" has completely changed in the information age.

3. Law enforcement. News is out this morning from Wired (click here) that law enforcement officials are considering reducing the amount of anonymity (and pseudonymity, one presumes) Net users can enjoy.

4. Equity. Based on data several years old, the government is spending $2 billion (!!!) to help close the digital divide. Using the "chicken in every pot" mentality of FDR (and later LBJ), they intend to "solve" the problems of technological inequality, not realizing how slow, late and meaningless their action is.

There are dozens more examples, but the point is this: the pace of innovation is leaving policymakers in the dust, and they are going to keep making uninformed decisions that may plague us for years . Our only recourse is an intensive campaign to educate them in the new realities, while respecting how difficult this period of transition will be.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Sounds like just one more reason the overhyped and purposeless space station program should be scrapped in favor of something scientifically useful and socially ennobling, like a mission to Mars. I largely agree with what Charles Krauthammer wrote in his recent Weekly Standard piece on this topic.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Sounds like just one more reason the overhyped and purposeless space station program should be scrapped in favor of something scientifically useful and socially ennobling, like a mission to Mars. I largely agree with what Charles Krauthammer wrote in his recent Weekly Standard piece on this topic.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

I recall an essay by Isaac Asimov in which he wrote that the ideal medium (for storytelling, not everything) would be one that could be used to privately convey stories with technology easy to master, requiring only a minimum of power to run infinitely. This ideal medium should be personal, small enough to fit in a pocket, and intelligent enough to pick up right where a user left off without a great deal of nuisance. It would be easy to navigate and multiple people would be able to use it (perhaps not simultaneously) with a minimum of fuss.

Then, he said, this ideal medium was already invented: the book.

Of course he wrote this in the 70s, before he could envision personal computers and the power of manipulating data. Also, he was naturally biased (having written more books than any other American). Still, it's a good point: until a medium can overcome every advantage of books, they aren't likely to disappear.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

I recall an essay by Isaac Asimov in which he wrote that the ideal medium (for storytelling, not everything) would be one that could be used to privately convey stories with technology easy to master, requiring only a minimum of power to run infinitely. This ideal medium should be personal, small enough to fit in a pocket, and intelligent enough to pick up right where a user left off without a great deal of nuisance. It would be easy to navigate and multiple people would be able to use it (perhaps not simultaneously) with a minimum of fuss.

Then, he said, this ideal medium was already invented: the book.

Of course he wrote this in the 70s, before he could envision personal computers and the power of manipulating data. Also, he was naturally biased (having written more books than any other American). Still, it's a good point: until a medium can overcome every advantage of books, they aren't likely to disappear.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Why artificially divide the world between "new" and "old" media? That makes no sense. Why is television considered a "new" medium, when it is centuries younger than bound books?

It seems to me to make much more sense to keep dividing and criticizing media along more traditional lines:

• The speed of the medium. How quickly can you publish? Books are slow, the Web is lightning fast. This characteristic is important, because books permit more time for deliberation, while the Web's speed means things can be published without being thoughtful. (Present company excluded, of course...)

  The forced format of the medium. Books have usually been text, magazines now have lots of pictures, newspapers are moving to more graphical formats, television is tied to pictures, and the Web might soon bring everything at once. "Old" and "New" makes no sense here; everyone wants to convey information in a way that makes the most sense for the information itself and for those who consume it.

  The number of people who can be involved. Books are generally very prohibitive; they are usually written by just one person. Newspapers, magazines and TV programs are often the result of collaboration - but they do not allow serious, prolonged interaction. The Web permits dialogue, often with amazing results (like Slashdot, or the new online academic journals). But there are always exceptions: many Web sites are top-down (without dialogue) and many newspapers have ample letters sections (encouraging public dialogue).

It just seems to me that calling some media old and some new is a particularly useless way of trying to dichotomize what is, in fact, a richly intricate and complex process.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Why artificially divide the world between "new" and "old" media? That makes no sense. Why is television considered a "new" medium, when it is centuries younger than bound books?

It seems to me to make much more sense to keep dividing and criticizing media along more traditional lines:

• The speed of the medium. How quickly can you publish? Books are slow, the Web is lightning fast. This characteristic is important, because books permit more time for deliberation, while the Web's speed means things can be published without being thoughtful. (Present company excluded, of course...)

  The forced format of the medium. Books have usually been text, magazines now have lots of pictures, newspapers are moving to more graphical formats, television is tied to pictures, and the Web might soon bring everything at once. "Old" and "New" makes no sense here; everyone wants to convey information in a way that makes the most sense for the information itself and for those who consume it.

  The number of people who can be involved. Books are generally very prohibitive; they are usually written by just one person. Newspapers, magazines and TV programs are often the result of collaboration - but they do not allow serious, prolonged interaction. The Web permits dialogue, often with amazing results (like Slashdot, or the new online academic journals). But there are always exceptions: many Web sites are top-down (without dialogue) and many newspapers have ample letters sections (encouraging public dialogue).

It just seems to me that calling some media old and some new is a particularly useless way of trying to dichotomize what is, in fact, a richly intricate and complex process.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

From "Old Computers Lose History Record" (BBC, 23 Feb 00)

Irony of ironies: Data records on floppy disks relating to an an archaeological dig decayed by 5 percent in under a decade - after everything had survived the journey from the Bronze Age intact.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

From "Old Computers Lose History Record" (BBC, 23 Feb 00)

Irony of ironies: Data records on floppy disks relating to an an archaeological dig decayed by 5 percent in under a decade - after everything had survived the journey from the Bronze Age intact.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Thanks for a great summary of the problems with keeping data viable. Maybe some /. reader will create a start-up to help schools and businesses deal with the problem, perhaps by creating the "museum" you alluded to. (I notice, for instance, that the domain www.datadecay.com is still available.)

I have a question, however, about the other end of the data life-cycle: its birth. Certainly data disappears, but what is the best way to describe or define "data," broadly generally? What is the best definition anybody here has ever heard for "information"? I'm having trouble finding a straight answer. Is data (information) a representation of something in the real world? Is it like a shadow of something else? We have seen how it can be created, we have seen how it can evolve, and we have seen how it can fade away and die, but what is the best definition of what it is?

This is one of those philosophical questions that just nags at the mind. If anybody can suggest definitions (or resources), I'd be grateful.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Thanks for a great summary of the problems with keeping data viable. Maybe some /. reader will create a start-up to help schools and businesses deal with the problem, perhaps by creating the "museum" you alluded to. (I notice, for instance, that the domain www.datadecay.com is still available.)

I have a question, however, about the other end of the data life-cycle: its birth. Certainly data disappears, but what is the best way to describe or define "data," broadly generally? What is the best definition anybody here has ever heard for "information"? I'm having trouble finding a straight answer. Is data (information) a representation of something in the real world? Is it like a shadow of something else? We have seen how it can be created, we have seen how it can evolve, and we have seen how it can fade away and die, but what is the best definition of what it is?

This is one of those philosophical questions that just nags at the mind. If anybody can suggest definitions (or resources), I'd be grateful.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Your objection seems to be against the entire notion of spying and intelligence collection generally, not Echelon in particular. After all, that's what intelligence collection is - countries secretly gathering information to prepare for situations which would otherwise surprise them and endanger their interests. If your objection is against spying and intelligence collection as a whole, well, you have a perfectly legitimate (or at least consistent) point.

My argument in the main posting was merely that Echelon doesn't seem to be all that different from what we already publicly knew about ordinary intelligence collection.

Yours,
A. Keiper

Well, I'm a bit of a retard. The analysis I just wrote was of Mr. Campbell's April 1999 report called Interception Capabilities 2000, which I had been led to believe was a mirror of today's report. That older report is still quite interesting, and well worth a read-through if you have the time. I look forward to seeing the latest report, which I assume supercedes the older one, when those EU servers are back online.

Apologies,
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Anybody remotely familiar with ordinary intelligence collection techniques should not be overly surprised by Mr. Campbell's report. Intelligence collection, particularly COMINT and SIGINT (communications and signals intelligence) have become extraordinarily difficult for intelligence agencies, what with the proliferation of new communications technologies. So much effort has been poured into these two areas that intelligence of other types is faltering. Reams of satellite data are collected every day, but only a fraction of it is ever analyzed. HUMINT (human, or "spy," intelligence) is sometimes left dangerously undervalued, which is sad because it often provides the best advance data. And the nascent field of MASINT (measurement and signature intel) is not getting the attention or the funding it deserves.

So what are the biggest revelations in this report, for those already familiar with intelligence collection? And for those who are new to the field and just worried about Echelon, what are the most important facts to remember?

1. Nobody is spying on you unless they already have reason to suspect you.

"The geographical and processing difficulties of collecting messages simultaneously from all parts of the globe suggest strongly that the tasking of these satellites [and other resources, as the report states] will be directed towards the highest priority national and military targets."

2. NSA has a much better grasp of Internet communications than would at first seem possible. The sheer immensity of Internet traffic and its global reach would seem to handicap NSA intelligence collection efforts. Not so, according to the report.

"Since the early 1990s, fast and sophisticated Comint systems have been developed to collect, filter and analyse the forms of fast digital communications used by the Internet... [A] large proportion of international communications on the Internet will by the nature of the system pass through the United States and thus be readily accessible to NSA... Although the quantities of data involved are immense, NSA is normally legally restricted to looking only at communications that start or finish in a foreign country. Unless special warrants are issued, all other data [like domestic U.S. e-mail] should normally be thrown away by machine before it can be examined or recorded... Much other Internet traffic (whether foreign to the US or not) is of trivial intelligence interest or can be handled in other ways [and usually reached by OSINT, "open source" intelligence]."

3. U.S. companies like Microsoft have purportedly cooperated in these intelligence collection efforts. This is unorthodox, to say the least. The following claims made in the report are allegations without a great deal of substantiation.

"According to a former employee, NSA had by 1995 installed "sniffer" software to collect such traffic at nine major Internet exchange points (IXPs). [A list follows.] ... The same article alleged that a leading US Internet and telecommunications company had contracted with NSA to develop software to capture Internet data of interest, and that deals had been struck with the leading manufacturers Microsoft, Lotus, and Netscape to alter their products for foreign use... The companies agreed to adapt their software to reduce the level of security provided to users outside the United States. In the case of Lotus Notes, which includes a secure e-mail system, the built-in cryptographic system uses a 64 bit encryption key. This provides a medium level of security, which might at present only be broken by NSA in months or years... [In 1995, the] companies agreed to adapt their software to reduce the level of security provided to users outside the United States. [Actually, this was not so much an agreement as a direct government requirement for exports.] In the case of Lotus Notes, which includes a secure e-mail system, the built-in cryptographic system uses a 64 bit encryption key. This provides a medium level of security, which might at present only be broken by NSA in months or years.

4. They don't tap your phones.

"Effective voice 'wordspotting' systems do not exist are not in use, despite reports to the contrary," according to the report. "Fax messages and computer data (from modems) are given priority in processing because of the ease with which they are understood and analysed." The only special phone technology the NSA has are systems that identify speakers by their voiceprint, which "have been in use since at least 1995."

5. The FBI may know more than it should. Collaboration between the intelligence community and FBI is seriously frowned upon, especially since it is occasionally the FBI's job to investigate breaches of protocol by the intelligence community. Yet, according to the report, the International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar (ILETS) was set up by the FBI in 1993, and has served as a guiding body for much of the COMINT work that fits under the name "Echelon."

"The work of ILETS has proceeded for 6 years without the involvement of parliaments, and in the absence of consultation with the industrial organisations whose vital interests their work affects."

Why is it important to keep the NSA (collection of intelligence) and the FBI (domestic crimes) separate? "Any failure to distinguish between legitimate law enforcement interception requirements and interception for clandestine intelligence purposes raises grave issues for civil liberties. A clear boundary between law enforcement and 'national security' interception activity is essential to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

6. The study has no real proof of corporations inappropriately benefiting from collected intelligence.

Businesses do not get help from intelligence agencies - governments do. The study admits this: "There is no evidence that companies in any of the UKUSA countries are able to task Comint collection to suit their private purposes."

Generally, there is nothing ethically wrong with a country collecting economic intelligence about another country. If intelligence is to be useful in any way, we need to know important economic data so we can act on them if necessary. The only ethical problem would be if specific businesses got help, but other than a spurious hint of impropriety, the study doesn't really have any proof. All it has is this quotation from a Baltimore Sun article: "Former intelligence officials and other experts say tips based on spying ... regularly flow from the Commerce Department to U.S. companies to help them win contracts overseas."

7. Echelon or not, the intelligence agencies are losing.

Every day, U.S. intelligence collection agencies slip farther behind. They are in sorry shape right now, with huge input, and very limited analysis capabilities. And in the end, the study admits that "[t]he use of strong cryptography is slowly impinging on Comint agencies' capabilities... [I]n the absence of new discoveries in physics or mathematics, Moore's law favours codemakers, not codebreakers."

Let me know if you think I've missed any of the study's major revelations.

Thank you.

Yours,
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Anybody remotely familiar with ordinary intelligence collection techniques should not be overly surprised by Mr. Campbell's report. Intelligence collection, particularly COMINT and SIGINT (communications and signals intelligence) have become extraordinarily difficult for intelligence agencies, what with the proliferation of new communications technologies. So much effort has been poured into these two areas that intelligence of other types is faltering. Reams of satellite data are collected every day, but only a fraction of it is ever analyzed. HUMINT (human, or "spy," intelligence) is sometimes left dangerously undervalued, which is sad because it often provides the best advance data. And the nascent field of MASINT (measurement and signature intel) is not getting the attention or the funding it deserves.

So what are the biggest revelations in this report, for those already familiar with intelligence collection? And for those who are new to the field and just worried about Echelon, what are the most important facts to remember?

1. Nobody is spying on you unless they already have reason to suspect you.

"The geographical and processing difficulties of collecting messages simultaneously from all parts of the globe suggest strongly that the tasking of these satellites [and other resources, as the report states] will be directed towards the highest priority national and military targets."

2. NSA has a much better grasp of Internet communications than would at first seem possible. The sheer immensity of Internet traffic and its global reach would seem to handicap NSA intelligence collection efforts. Not so, according to the report.

"Since the early 1990s, fast and sophisticated Comint systems have been developed to collect, filter and analyse the forms of fast digital communications used by the Internet... [A] large proportion of international communications on the Internet will by the nature of the system pass through the United States and thus be readily accessible to NSA... Although the quantities of data involved are immense, NSA is normally legally restricted to looking only at communications that start or finish in a foreign country. Unless special warrants are issued, all other data [like domestic U.S. e-mail] should normally be thrown away by machine before it can be examined or recorded... Much other Internet traffic (whether foreign to the US or not) is of trivial intelligence interest or can be handled in other ways [and usually reached by OSINT, "open source" intelligence]."

3. U.S. companies like Microsoft have purportedly cooperated in these intelligence collection efforts. This is unorthodox, to say the least. The following claims made in the report are allegations without a great deal of substantiation.

"According to a former employee, NSA had by 1995 installed "sniffer" software to collect such traffic at nine major Internet exchange points (IXPs). [A list follows.] ... The same article alleged that a leading US Internet and telecommunications company had contracted with NSA to develop software to capture Internet data of interest, and that deals had been struck with the leading manufacturers Microsoft, Lotus, and Netscape to alter their products for foreign use... The companies agreed to adapt their software to reduce the level of security provided to users outside the United States. In the case of Lotus Notes, which includes a secure e-mail system, the built-in cryptographic system uses a 64 bit encryption key. This provides a medium level of security, which might at present only be broken by NSA in months or years... [In 1995, the] companies agreed to adapt their software to reduce the level of security provided to users outside the United States. [Actually, this was not so much an agreement as a direct government requirement for exports.] In the case of Lotus Notes, which includes a secure e-mail system, the built-in cryptographic system uses a 64 bit encryption key. This provides a medium level of security, which might at present only be broken by NSA in months or years.

4. They don't tap your phones.

"Effective voice 'wordspotting' systems do not exist are not in use, despite reports to the contrary," according to the report. "Fax messages and computer data (from modems) are given priority in processing because of the ease with which they are understood and analysed." The only special phone technology the NSA has are systems that identify speakers by their voiceprint, which "have been in use since at least 1995."

5. The FBI may know more than it should. Collaboration between the intelligence community and FBI is seriously frowned upon, especially since it is occasionally the FBI's job to investigate breaches of protocol by the intelligence community. Yet, according to the report, the International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar (ILETS) was set up by the FBI in 1993, and has served as a guiding body for much of the COMINT work that fits under the name "Echelon."

"The work of ILETS has proceeded for 6 years without the involvement of parliaments, and in the absence of consultation with the industrial organisations whose vital interests their work affects."

Why is it important to keep the NSA (collection of intelligence) and the FBI (domestic crimes) separate? "Any failure to distinguish between legitimate law enforcement interception requirements and interception for clandestine intelligence purposes raises grave issues for civil liberties. A clear boundary between law enforcement and 'national security' interception activity is essential to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

6. The study has no real proof of corporations inappropriately benefiting from collected intelligence.

Businesses do not get help from intelligence agencies - governments do. The study admits this: "There is no evidence that companies in any of the UKUSA countries are able to task Comint collection to suit their private purposes."

Generally, there is nothing ethically wrong with a country collecting economic intelligence about another country. If intelligence is to be useful in any way, we need to know important economic data so we can act on them if necessary. The only ethical problem would be if specific businesses got help, but other than a spurious hint of impropriety, the study doesn't really have any proof. All it has is this quotation from a Baltimore Sun article: "Former intelligence officials and other experts say tips based on spying ... regularly flow from the Commerce Department to U.S. companies to help them win contracts overseas."

7. Echelon or not, the intelligence agencies are losing.

Every day, U.S. intelligence collection agencies slip farther behind. They are in sorry shape right now, with huge input, and very limited analysis capabilities. And in the end, the study admits that "[t]he use of strong cryptography is slowly impinging on Comint agencies' capabilities... [I]n the absence of new discoveries in physics or mathematics, Moore's law favours codemakers, not codebreakers."

Let me know if you think I've missed any of the study's major revelations.

Thank you.

Yours,
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Some links relating to the technology related to Echelon can be found in a recent edition of Crypto-Gram.

Also, there are several related links on the Personal Security page of the Center for the Study of Technology and Society.

Finally, if you want the wire version of the story, click here.

Yours,
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technoloy and Society

Some links relating to the technology related to Echelon can be found in a recent edition of Crypto-Gram.

Also, there are several related links on the Personal Security page of the Center for the Study of Technology and Society.

Finally, if you want the wire version of the story, click here.

Yours,
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technoloy and Society