Slashdot Mirror

"The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation. The order ... may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before a person appointed by the court. By virtue of his appointment, the person appointed has power to administer any necessary oath and take the testimony or statement. ... To the extent that the order does not prescribe otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken, and the document or other thing produced, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

The point is that the real order came from a district court judge, and if Rackspace wanted to object to it, they had the right to raise any of the objections in the federal rules of civil procedure that would apply in a deposition, like "it costs too much", "the request is overreaching", "the request would interfere with the operation of our business", etc. And they're raised before that judge, not the "commissioner". Note that civil procedure applies, even though this is a criminal case. There's no arrest authority implicit in this.

Now this is standard DOJ procedure. But it's more intimidation than actual legal authority. The use of the "commissioner" term is pure intimidation. Especially if the "commissioner subpoena" was delivered without the court order from a real judge that authorizes it.

This is what islamic miltitants really want. this is the real goal.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_1.pdf

I am sure many of you won't believe it. But your the ones that will be turned first by these people. Your the easest to confuse.

Page 12 is about what they should be doing and what the aim really is.

No, Microsoft currently doesn't have anything to compete against the iPod.

Microsoft is not concerned about the physical player per se, but every iPod that's sold means there's one more person who won't be buying music from an online store that uses Windows Media format. So Microsoft does have something to lose.

Just the fact that Apple and MS are market rivals doesn't mean that MS would try to threaten a company like HP from promoting Apple products.

What are you talking about? They've already done that! Years ago, when PC makers started trying to bundle Netscape Navigator, Microsoft pressured them to stop with threats like increasing the price they paid for Windows, or revoking their Windows distribution license entirely.

It's not really likely that MS threatened HP in this case, but MS is certainly no stranger to such behavior (Read from paragraph 230 in the above link).

~Philly

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/press_room/press_rel eases/2005_4157_internetpiracy072805.pdf

Fastlink was most famous for bringing down Fairlight, one of the most infamous warez groups *ever*. As far as I'm aware, Fastlink did not target any child porn websites. Which is a good thing; being compared to peddlers of child pornography is the last thing these guys need.

Note that the Fastlink 'busts' occured over a year ago. It's taken an awfully-long time to charge the people involved.

Operation Fastlink: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/April/04_crm_263. htm

How long before pinging a router is an "investigable offence" for causing a drop in router resources?

Not very long, if such an act could be considered "trespassing" or something to that effect. See the cybercrime parts of the Patriot Act: CCIPS

Consider; the United States is intent on imprisoning higher and higher numbers of people each year. Is it any wonder that they are taking the easier route by turning the entire country into a prison?

But hey, Google buying up companies and offering the software for free to kill the competition is a honorable thing right?

I think now that Google is a public company it is inevitable that it will follow its motivation. The examples you cite, however do seem to be different. I don't see that any of these products are tied (pdf) to an existing offering, responsible for breaking a competitor's product or obtained through outright theft

To put this in perspective, crack cocaine, oxycodone (aka percoset or oxycontin), methamphetamine (speed) and PCP, are all schedule 2 drugs, which makes it easier to obtain approval to conduct research using them, or approve a new medical application of them. (DEA Drug Scheduling: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html/)

*Marinol is available in pill form, but it is the synthesis of only one of the active drugs in marijuana smoke, leaving other, potentially useful counterparts out. While I understand the refusal of the FDA to approve of smoke administered drugs, vaporizers eliminate the harms of smoking, and have existed since the 1970s. Recent models such as the "Volcano" eliminate any realistic health objections (evidence: http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizerstudy2 .html/ and pictures here: http://www.storz-bickel.com/en_home.htm/ )

Overall, inhalation is a superior delivery mechanism for pain that comes on quickly. This is because ingested marijuana (or Marinol alone) takes some time to be released and will remain in the body for long periods of time, making it ineffective in alleviating flare-ups.

It would be a helpful first step if marijuana were rescheduled given the fact that it does not possess the abuse potential the FDA claims. Marijuana has never been shown to be physically/chemically addicting, unlike all of the schedule 2 drugs I mentioned, as well as tobacco. Furthermore, marijuana doesn't have a significant lethal dose potential, unlike all of the schedule 2 drugs I mentioned, or even alcohol for that matter! It's time we got over our government propaganda induced fear and approve beneficial medical applications as a minimal first step. Our irrational fear hurts those with chronic pain, forcing ordinary people to choose between breaking the law or suffering needlessly.

Re: lethal dose of Marijuana and Alcohol - "There is a major health risk of acute alcohol use that is not shared with cannabis. In large doses alcohol can cause death by asphyxiation, alcohol poisoning, cardiomyopathy and cardiac infarct. There are no recorded cases of overdose fatalities attributed to cannabis, and the estimated lethal dose for humans extrapolated from animal studies is so high that it cannot be achieved by recreational users." (Source: http://www.legalisieren.at/studien/who/comparison. htm/)

...further recognizing that marijuana prohibition, like alcohol prohibition in its heyday, creates more problems then it solves would be icing on the cake. I'm not holding my breath for that one, especially given the White House's historic position and the recent Bush Supreme Court nominee.

-Scott

Iam sorry to contest you, but if you are considered as a threat to national security, or an enemy of state by Ashcroft, your much-vaunted rights to an attorney or a speedy trial will disappear like an ice cube under hot sahara sun.

I hate to break it to you, but Ashcroft isn't the U.S. Attorney General anymore. Alberto Gonzales is.

So don't go preaching with one finger when three fingers are pointing at yourself.

Thanks for that wisdom. Why don't you try looking at the real world before making your vitriolic diatribes?

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030NEW.h tm

5)(A)(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

It's supposed to be: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/websites2.htm
I believe it is also required for Federal websites.

The ADA is what we have. I'm not sure if it's ever been used to force a website to be accessible, though.

Microsoft's influence in high places allowed them to avoid punishment, despite being found guilty in the DOJ case.

That same influence is now being targetted _against_ Intel.

As you point out, AMD is doing quite well these days. They are close buddies with Microsoft, they have their own CPU designs which are competitive with Intel's, and AMD CPUs have been selected by various large buyers, such as Sun.

So for AMD to fight Intel in court right now is a risky move that makes little sense. AMD could end up pulling a SCO.

And the analogy to SCO runs deeper, because, in both cases, you find Microsoft pulling the strings.

While it makes little sense for AMD to fight Intel right now, it makes perfect sense for Microsoft to push AMD (and the government) to do it.

That's because Intel has become a threat to Microsoft. Not only has Intel been supporting Linux, but Intel is taking their hardware in directions that Microsoft is incapable of following (such as the Itanium, which depends on compiler optimizations to perform well). If this trend continues, then Linux is going to be running on some very powerful and popular PCs that won't run Windows.

AMD, on the other hand, has been catering to Microsoft's inabilities, and optimizing their CPUs just for Windows. AMD is counting on Microsoft to help them increase marketshare.

This situation has been building for some time now. For example, there was this quote from the DOJ Findings of Fact:

> In February 1997, one of Intel's competitors, called AMD, solicited support from Microsoft for its "3DX" technology, which provided sophisticated multimedia support for games. Microsoft's Allchin asked Gates whether Microsoft should support 3DX, despite the fact that Intel would oppose it. Gates responded: "If Intel has a real problem with us supporting this then they will have to stop supporting Java Multimedia the way they are. I would gladly give up supporting this if they would back off from their work on JAVA which is terrible for Intel."

Plus, just a little after that is another quote that shows how Microsoft uses its friends to attack its enemies (just like SCO):

> Near the end of March, Allchin sent another message to Gates and Maritz. In it he wrote, "I am positive that we must do a direct attack on Sun (and probably Oracle).... Between ourselves and our partners, we can certainly hurt their (certainly Sun's) revenue base.... We need to get Intel to help us. Today, they are not."

So there you have it. History tells us that this court case is most likely just another anti-competitive move by Microsoft.

By the way, did you ever notice how the regulatory bodies used to scrutinize every partnership and purchase AOL made, yet those same regulators never lifted a finger as Microsoft bought up more and more Internet companies?

And don't let anyone try to tell you that the government is getting involved to help consumers, or the industry. After all, those same government officials have allowed the world's most expensive denial-of-service attack to continue to this day. I am speaking, of course, of Microsoft's pollution of the Java market with incompatible Java clients. To this day, companies still can't trust the compatibility of Internet Java clients enough to build the interactive e-commerce sites that they were planning to build five years ago. This DOS attack by Microsoft has been costing the U.S. economy $billions per year.

So, no, it's not about protecting consumers or industry. This is about Microsoft using its influence in government to try to remove any threats to its monopoly. In other words, just follow the money.

Hmm, its not just "12 sites." They took out major release groups.

According to the DoJ:
"The release groups targeted by Site Down specialize in the distribution of all types of pirated works including utility and application software, movies, music, and games. Among the warez groups hit yesterday are: RiSCISO, Myth, TDA, LND, Goodfellaz, Hoodlum, Vengeance, Centropy, Wasted Time, Paranoid, Corrupt, Gamerz, AdmitONE, Hellbound, KGS, BBX, KHG, NOX, NFR, CDZ, TUN, and BHP."

I think that it is a little more difficult to replace those guys. Bandwidth, insiders in the industry, etc.

You can find "comments" from the scene people here along with a copy of two search warrants by the RCMP for two of the raids that occured in Edmonton, Canada. (Coral Cache of the above, just in case)

Some information about Site Down can be found here.

And whoever is saying that RCMP is targetting sceners, take a look at their Strategic Priorities... My bet is that, just as it happened in the States, they are being pressured by the CRTC (Canada's equivalent to MPAA and RIAA all in one), and with that new DMCA-like law, what could possibly stop them from raping every canadian file trader like they did (and continue to do) to the US'?

You didn't hear it from me!

According to this Department of Justice terrorist manual, the terrorists are embedding themselves in normal life, and developing a code language indistinguishable from normal business conversation.

Why is it ok for linux to include everything but the kitchen sink (and beta drivers for that too), but microsoft is evil if it includes a web browser?

The answer to the question, "why Microsoft is considered evil if it includes a web browser", is because used that bundling to illegally leverage its desktop monopoly to break into the browser market. Just search on for the case The United States of America versus Microsoft Corporation. You'll get way more than just MS vs Netscape.

That's also why most people consider Microsoft's "Linux Lab" to be some sort of sham, based purely on the company's record of past behavior.

33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

No matter how many times the evidence gets posted, there are still people who seem ignorant of Microsoft's criminal behaviour. Of course, we also know that Microsoft has been caught paying people to write articles and post in forums, so we never know what a given poster's motivation is.

Cases like Go's lawsuit are _NOT_ frivilous attempts to get money out of Microsoft. On the contrary, Microsoft has had a series of losses in court BECAUSE MICROSOFT WAS GUILTY.

In just the last few years, Microsoft was found guilty of criminal behaviour by the DOJ, and has had to make massive payouts to Sun, Novell, IBM, Apple, and others. Those are not companies that got rich through frivilous lawsuits.

Microsoft's standard method of operation has been well documented over the years. As happened with DR-DOS, Java, and Netscape, among other examples, Microsoft:

1. Allows their own product to stagnate for years.

2. Finally notices when another company starts to succeed with a new or improved technology.

3. Copies the new or improved technology (sometimes buys it, but often steals it, hence the lawsuits).

4. Fails to succeed with their often-second-rate copy.

5. Finally resorts to sabotaging the other company, through FUD, payoffs, polluting standards, and so on.

6. Gets a slap on the wrist from the courts. Pays a fine. Profit!

Microsoft's greatest innovation is their strategy for stealing technology. Microsoft always starts out by forming a partnership, or at least entering into negotiations with the other company, before stealing that company's technology. That way, the criminal courts never get involved, and no one at Microsoft ends up going to jail. Instead, the case always goes to civil court, where the worst Microsoft is likely to face is a fine. Microsoft is a master at manipulating the law.

I said that the evidence is frequently posted. Here is where you can read some of it:

The DOJ case against Microsoft - Findings of Fact:

For example, this quote showing how Microsoft blackmailed Apple:

> Gates informed those Microsoft executives most closely involved in the negotiations with Apple that the discussions "have not been going well at all." One of the several reasons for this, Gates wrote, was that "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office...."

Or these quotes from Microsoft's James Allchin:

> I don't understand how IE is going to win. The current path is simply to copy everything that Netscape does packaging and product wise. Let's [suppose] IE is as good as Navigator/Communicator. Who wins? The one with 80% market share.

> Pitting browser against browser is hard since Netscape has 80% marketshare and we have 20%.... I am convinced we have to use Windows -- this is the one thing they don't have.... We have to be competitive with features, but we need something more -- Windows integration. If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE and Windows together.

Also, read the parts about the ways Microsoft "encouraged" companies to break their contracts with Netscape, about how Microsoft threatened Intel to get them to stop working on Java, and so on.

Sun's lawsuit against Microsoft over Java:

This is a classic case of Microsoft attempting to copy/steal another company's product, then sabotaging that company's version of it.

For example, there is this memo about a meeting with Bill Gates:

> When I met with you last, you had a lot of pretty pointed questions about Java, so I want to make sure I understand your issues/concerns...

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo

There is no double standard.

The standard is honesty -- Debian has it, and Microsoft doesn't.

Debian is just a bunch of guys, mostly volunteers, trying to make the best Linux distribution they can.

Microsoft, on the other hand, is the company that:

1. Sabotaged Java:

> Strategic Objective [is to] kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market.

2. Defrauded Their Own Customers:

> At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."

3. Blackmailed Apple:

> Gates informed those Microsoft executives most closely involved in the negotiations with Apple that the discussions "have not been going well at all." One of the several reasons for this, Gates wrote, was that "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office...."

4. Is Trying To Sabotage Linux:

> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

5. Stole from Stacker. Stole from Go. Sabotaged WordPerfect. Sabotaged DR-DOS. Commited perjury in a federal court. Sabotaged GeoWorks. Sabotaged AmiPro. Paid companies to break their contracts with Netscape. Fudded DR-DOS. Fudded OS/2. Is currently fudding Linux. And so on.

In short: Microsoft is a criminal organization. If we treated Microsoft the same as Debian, then _that_ would be a double standard.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/June/05_crm_353.h tm

who think it should be legalized, I have two words for you: gateway drug. Yes, maybe not for you, but for a lot of others. And when those others switch to the hard stuff (narcotics, etc.)...

Perhaps the "others" wouldn't switch to the "hard stuff" if they didn't have to buy their pot from narcotics dealers.

start shooting up neighborhoods and filling up the emergency rooms and mortuaries faster, you can tell everybody you didn't know it would be such a problem.

Our hospital ER gets filled up nearly every weekend with overdoses both legal (etoh, benzo, opiate, aceteminophen, and ASA), and illegal (cocaine, meth, and opiates), yet I've never seen anyone admitted let alone die from a marijuana overdose.

Just because alcohol and tobacco are already legal doesn't mean all drugs should be.

Nor does it mean that it shouldn't be.

As for the pain-killing aspects, you seriously think there's no alternative medications for that?

Actually, a legal form of THC does exist and is used for nausea and to increase appetites in cancer and AIDS patients.

Quote from the site:

"A pharmaceutical product, Marinol, is widely available through prescription. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.

Unlike smoked marijuana--which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke-Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation's watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products. Since the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, any drug that is marketed in the United States must undergo rigorous scientific testing. The approval process mandated by this act ensures that claims of safety and therapeutic value are supported by clinical evidence and keeps unsafe, ineffective and dangerous drugs off the market."

There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette."

You could infer from the above that the anti-smoking crowd has done more to stop the legalization of pot than anybody else.

If you had a 16% chance of getting shot every time you drove down a certain street would you avoid it or not?

If every kid had a 16% chance of being a victim, it would be a totally different story.

When you consider that violent criminals have a much higher rate of recidivism and that there are more of them, my comments stand.

BWP

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons [who later were rearrested for a sex crime], released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

Compared to non-sex offendors release from State prisons [who later were rearrested for a similar crime], released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons [who later were rearrested for a sex crime], released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

Compared to non-sex offendors release from State prisons [who later were rearrested for a similar crime], released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

Tell me then, what could he have done about this? He could have issued an executive order... which people would have just loved and would have only lasted until Congress could've voted on it, or maybe he could have denounced it publicly, which he would have been painted as a partisan trying to interrupt the rulings of a court. He had no way to prevent this. I don't see how this particular problem is his fault. I voted for him too, but this isn't about him. He has done some things that I don't agree with... but, Hell, I've done things I don't agree with. If you were going to blast anyone, please blast the supporters of this. Write letters to your Congressman asking for legislation, then Bush so he can sign it. If it falls apart at Bush's desk, then you can blast him, and I'll agree. But for me, I choose to blame the SCOTUS Justices who botched this. I'm off to the DoJ Website to find contact information to complain, and let them know I'm not happy, and my Representative to try to change it. I'd appreciate the help, if you're obliged to actually DO something as an American citizen, and hence part of the Gov't. Otherwise... quit misdirecting people's agner and let us try to fix it. But I would really appreciate the help.

Some developers are simply ignorant of the standards and alternatives, and/or they don't understand the long term consequences of letting one company control the standards.

Some developers understand the alternatives, and the long term consequences of not using open standards, but they are simply too lazy, or amoral, to be bothered doing anything about it.

And Microsoft, of course, is practising their usual brand of sabotage, trying to pollute the standard so only their products will work.

Microsoft's schemes have always relied on the ignorance and laziness of developers and users. In this case, Microsoft intentionally tweeks products like Frontpage and MS Word to produce non-standard HTML.

This was an even bigger problem in the past, when Microsoft could use HTML that relied on bugs in Netscape to cause it to crash. But Mozilla and Firefox are, fortunately, higher quality products.

This was part of a bigger plan to stop Netscape, and leave Microsoft with a monopoly on web browsers, and thus the Internet itself. Other steps Microsoft took included paying companies to break their contracts with Netscape, threatening Apple with the loss of MS Office for the Mac, if Apple didn't stop supporting Netscape, and so on. You can read more about it the the DOJ case against Microsoft.

In recent years, Microsoft's strategy of polluting standards was expanded to try to block the progress of Linux and other Open Source products, as one Microsoft analyst stated in Microsoft's infamous Halloween document:

> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

And, finally, you can see another example of Microsoft's strategy at work, when they used it to try to sabotage the Java standard, as shown in the evidence in Sun's case against Microsoft, in the following quote from a Microsoft marketing presentation:

> Strategic Objective [is to] kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market.

Along with Microsoft's reliance on the ignorance and laziness of their customers, as shown in this quote:

> At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."

So, it's up to you. You can be lazy and use development tools that create websites that only work in Internet Explorer. The long term result will be an Internet that is largely controlled by a single company, and, as history has shown, is essentially stagnant.

Or, you can support shared and open standards, and ensure an Internet where innovation and free enterprise can thrive, and the people in developing nations can afford to get a foot in the door to help lift themselves out of poverty.

For myself, I always start out by developing websites that follow standards. I then test them in Mozilla, Firefox, Safari, and Opera, and they usually work fine, with some minor adjustments.

Then I test them in Internet Explorer, and decide how much additional effort I am going to spend. Getting around the non-standard quirks in IE can often double my development effort. I will be glad when IE's share shrinks to the point where Microsoft is forced to fix their product, and follow standards.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr2002/129.html http://www.nfap.net/researchactivities/studies/Soc ialSecurityStudy2005Revised.pdf

In Europe it is now illegal to tell publicly how to bypass copy 'protection' schemes

Even if you are a duly authori[sz]ed representative of the owner of copyright in the works in question? If the implementations of the EU Copyright Directive are anything like the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA (17 USC 1201 et seq), then operating "with[] the authority of the copyright owner" is a valid defen[cs]e:

(3) As used in this subsection-- (A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner.

Those who can remember the history of the PC and Microsoft (unlike the grandparent poster) will already be aware of the illegal means that Microsoft used to gain their near-monopoly position.

First, Microsoft never beat Apple in a competition. The open PC platform beat the Apple platform. Microsoft just went along for the ride.

The real issue is how Microsoft prevented competition on the PC. Here are some of the highlights:

1. DR-DOS provided a better OS, after Microsoft had allowed MS-DOS to stagnate for years. Microsoft stopped DR-DOS by a) adding a fraudulent error message to Windows suggesting that DR-DOS was incompatible, which MS knew was false; b) having false stories published about problems with DR-DOS; and c) adding code to Windows specifically to make it fail when run on DR-DOS.

2. OS/2 was on its way to being better than Windows. Microsoft had false stories published, and had people lying in public forums (see the Barkto incident) to destroy OS/2's reputation. MS is also purported to have provided intentionally-flaky code as their part of the OS/2 deal, and changed the Windows APIs to destroy application compatibility with OS/2.

3. Geoworks provided an excellent Windows-95-like GUI for the PC, but five years earlier. Microsoft made a change to the next release of MS-DOS which caused Geoworks to stop working.

4. WordPerfect had captured the majority of the word processing market with their better product. Microsoft lied to WordPerfect about their plans for OS/2, causing WordPerfect to waste time and resources, then sabotaged WordPerfect on Windows by providing intentionally-flaky Windows APIs.

5. Netscape had captured the majority of the browser market before Microsoft even noticed the existence of the Internet. Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by threatening or paying companies to break their deals with Netscape. With no profits coming in, Netscape could no longer afford to improve their browser, or even stay in business. Microsoft also preloaded IE with Windows, and forbid OEMs to preload Netscape, causing IE to "win" by default. This case has been thoroughly documented by the DOJ.

6. Java was a high level, VM-based, cross-platform language, that promised to open up a whole new market for e-commerce, and other web-based services. Microsoft put out a version of Java (J++) that intentionally broke compatibility in order to "kill cross-platform Java by growing the polluted Java market." Microsoft also threatened Intel, and others, to force them to stop any work to help Java run well on the PC.

There are other cases (Bristol, Stacker, and so on).

To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft has never managed to defeat a strong competitor through competition. Instead, Microsoft's history shows repeated cases of using illegal means (mostly sabotage and fraud) to undermine a competitor, while Microsoft copied the competitor's product.

The net result is that PC and Internet development are 5-10 years behind where they would have been, were it not for Microsoft's various acts of sabotage.

> Not letting them sell a product the way they want to in the name of "competition" is BS.

That is correct. As Ayn Rand has explained, the antitrust laws are contradictory, and ineffective, and have mostly been used to punish success. I disagree with them, even when used against a desrving target like Microsoft.

Instead, the law should be going after Microsoft for their real crimes. These generally involve extortion, sabotage, and fraud, and there are many examples:

1. Extortion:

Bill Gates threatens to harm Apple, if Apple does not stop doing business with Netscape:

> Gates informed those Microsoft executives most closely involved in the negotiations with Apple that the discussions "have not been going well at all." One of the several reasons for this, Gates wrote, was that "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office...."

2. Sabotage:

Microsoft strategy to destroy shared standards, in order to block competition from Linux:

> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

A Microsoft marketing presentation describes how they will sabotage Java:

> The "strategic objective" is to "kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market."

3. Fraud:

Microsoft's plans to defraud their customers regarding the Java compatibility of J++:

> "At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."

Once you get away from the antitrust laws, and start looking at the real crimes, then the proper punishment becomes more obvious, namely, jail time for various Microsoft officials.

The public is best served by Free Market competition. It is also our right to compete in a free society.

Unfortunately, competition can be subverted by those who are willing to break the law. And by methods similar to the above, and other fraudulent means (paying people to lie, in magazine articles, letters to the editor, etc.), Microsoft has managed to destroy better products and competitors without actually having to compete. Microsoft's behavior, and methods, are more like those of a crime syndicate, than a competitive business.

When there is competition, some people become very rich, while increasing the wealth of society as a whole. But when companies use criminal means, they can become rich, while causing great damage to society as a whole. The latter is the case with Microsoft.

And the damage has been great. To give just one example, Microsoft's sabotage of Java in web clients has delayed the development of e-commerce by at least half a decade, at a cost to the world of tens of billions of dollars. I sometimes wonder what that would translate to in lost lives.

Similarly, Microsoft used sabotage and fraud to stop competition in the PC OS market (DR-DOS, Geoworks, OS/2), in PC applications market (WordPerfect), and in the PC browser market (Netscape). As a result, new developments involving the PC (thin clients, PVRs, grid supercomputers, 64-bit computing), and the Internet (tabs, interactive web clients) stagnated for years until new competitors, such as Linux and Mozilla, came along, enabling the new development

Breaking into someone's computer may seem like fun, but the consequences are not: Under the Arizona Computer Crime Act of 2000, computer tampering is a felony. Offenders can face up to 12½ years in prison and fines of up to $150,000.

• 18 U.S.C. 1029. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Access Devices
  
• 18 U.S.C. 1030. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers
  
• 18 U.S.C. 1362. Communication Lines, Stations, or Systems
  
• 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications
  
• 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access
  
• 18 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. Recording of Dialing, Routing, Addressing, and Signaling Information
  

Breaking into someone's computer may seem like fun, but the consequences are not: Under the Arizona Computer Crime Act of 2000, computer tampering is a felony. Offenders can face up to 12½ years in prison and fines of up to $150,000.

• 18 U.S.C. 1029. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Access Devices
  
• 18 U.S.C. 1030. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers
  
• 18 U.S.C. 1362. Communication Lines, Stations, or Systems
  
• 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications
  
• 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access
  
• 18 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. Recording of Dialing, Routing, Addressing, and Signaling Information
  

Breaking into someone's computer may seem like fun, but the consequences are not: Under the Arizona Computer Crime Act of 2000, computer tampering is a felony. Offenders can face up to 12½ years in prison and fines of up to $150,000.

• 18 U.S.C. 1029. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Access Devices
  
• 18 U.S.C. 1030. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers
  
• 18 U.S.C. 1362. Communication Lines, Stations, or Systems
  
• 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications
  
• 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access
  
• 18 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. Recording of Dialing, Routing, Addressing, and Signaling Information
  

Breaking into someone's computer may seem like fun, but the consequences are not: Under the Arizona Computer Crime Act of 2000, computer tampering is a felony. Offenders can face up to 12½ years in prison and fines of up to $150,000.

• 18 U.S.C. 1029. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Access Devices
  
• 18 U.S.C. 1030. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers
  
• 18 U.S.C. 1362. Communication Lines, Stations, or Systems
  
• 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications
  
• 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access
  
• 18 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. Recording of Dialing, Routing, Addressing, and Signaling Information
  

Breaking into someone's computer may seem like fun, but the consequences are not: Under the Arizona Computer Crime Act of 2000, computer tampering is a felony. Offenders can face up to 12½ years in prison and fines of up to $150,000.

• 18 U.S.C. 1029. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Access Devices
  
• 18 U.S.C. 1030. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers
  
• 18 U.S.C. 1362. Communication Lines, Stations, or Systems
  
• 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications
  
• 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access
  
• 18 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. Recording of Dialing, Routing, Addressing, and Signaling Information
  

Under 17 USC 1201, enacted as part of the DMCA, the copyright owner has the right to prohibit the making and/or use of even "fair" copies made pursuant to 17 USC 117 if such use requires circumvention of CD-ROM/CD-R detection or any other technological measure.

No, it doesn't. In fact, while 17 USC 1201 (a)(1)(A) seems to make a bitcopy a crime, (B)-(E) make it clear that (A) is far from absolute.

And even if you never read down to 1201(c)(1)*, 1201(a)(1)(A) uses the verb CIRCUMVENT. A bit-for-bit copy doesn't circumvent any effective control.

(17 US 1201(c)(1) reads, exactly, "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title [17 U.S.C.A. S 1 et seq.]." If it's fair use, the DMCA doesn't apply.)

A lot of programs' installers require administrator privileges, and a driver installed by a administrator can make all the ioctl() calls it wants (or the equivalent under other operating systems).

Yes, it can. But WinXP shouts when someone tries to install a driver--and installing custom drivers to read documents from a perfectly working drive is a great way to grant a legal right for a user to crack your CD, archival rights notwithstanding.

(Don't believe me? Go crack unpatented DRM and release it as a closed-sorce reader that doesn't reveal how to perform the crack. Behold as no one tries to file suit against you, save perhaps the FSF.)

Specifically, Jackson determined that Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by unlawfully "tying" its Web browser to its operating system, and by a series of other anti-competitive acts that included foregoing millions of dollars in revenue through its practice of giving away the browser for free, and applying extreme pressure on Internet service providers and hardware retailers. Jackson also declared that Microsoft's creation of a version of the Java programming language incompatible with Sun Microsystems' Java fit into the same pattern of abusive practices.

As its internal contemporaneous documents and licensing practices reveal, Microsoft decided to bind Internet Explorer to Windows in order to prevent Navigator from weakening the applications barrier to entry, rather than for any pro-competitive purpose.

Specifically, Jackson determined that Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by unlawfully "tying" its Web browser to its operating system, and by a series of other anti-competitive acts that included foregoing millions of dollars in revenue through its practice of giving away the browser for free, and applying extreme pressure on Internet service providers and hardware retailers. Jackson also declared that Microsoft's creation of a version of the Java programming language incompatible with Sun Microsystems' Java fit into the same pattern of abusive practices.

As its internal contemporaneous documents and licensing practices reveal, Microsoft decided to bind Internet Explorer to Windows in order to prevent Navigator from weakening the applications barrier to entry, rather than for any pro-competitive purpose.

Disclaimer...I work in the CI (competitive intelligence) field.

Incorrect. Most legitimate companies will run screaming the other way at the suggestion of buying competitive intelligence that was illegally obtained. There is such a thing as the Economic Espionage Act of 1996: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1831NEW.h tm

Compaines take this seriously. So do people who work in this field.

Actually, copyright violation is a civil matter as well.

That loophole was plugged in the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act of 1997.

Really, though, this falls under my comment that if you don't do anything illegal, they will have no reason to search the apartment.

And that comment is obviously wrong. Here are some nice statistics. Between October 1, 1999 and September 30, 2000, 115,589 people were arrested by the Federal government. Of those, only 87,006 were prosecuted. Of those, only 68,156 were convicted. It is apparent that a lot of innocent people are investigated, with all which that entails, by the Federal government.

That is to say, some 50,000 innocent people had enough evidence compiled against them to be arrested. At the very least, an arrest was likely a major inconvenience, if not a severe disruption of their lives.

This might help your understanding.

Slightly off-topic... but do you realise that the Doj - Microsoft settlement is due to expire next year?

Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9462.htm

"V.Termination

1. Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire on the fifth anniversary of the date it is entered by the Court."