Slashdot Mirror

Were the PATRIOT Act abuse complaints that the DOJ Inspector General dismissed without investigation really so unbelievable? The Inspector General's report states:

Approximately three-quarters of the 1,748 complaints made allegations that did not warrant an investigation. For example, some of the complaints alleged that government agents were broadcasting signals that interfere with a person's thoughts or dreams or that prison officials had laced the prison food with hallucinogenic drugs.
-- Report to Congress on Implementation of Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act
-- U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General
-- March 11, 2005, page 5
-- http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0503/final.pdf

Judge for yourself:
A current US program of involuntary human experimentation
New Technologies Threaten Human Rights
Electromagnetics and the Mind
http://www.geocities.com/mrmistermicko
http://www.datafilter.com/mc
http://www.angelfire.com/or/mctrl

The PATRIOT provisions requires the Deparment of Justice Office of the Inspector General to collect and respond to complaints, when appropriate, and issue a report on its findings twice a year.

The March 11, 2005 report is here.

And from TFA:

Consider the stats from the latest report, released on Friday. DOJ received 1,943 complaints about alleged civil liberties abuses. Of these, 1,748 either did not warrant an investigation or were outside DOJ's jurisdiction:

Approximately three-quarters of the 1,748 complaints made allegations that did not warrant an investigation. For example, some of the complaints alleged that government agents were broadcasting signals that interfere with a person's thoughts or dreams or that prison officials had laced the prison food with hallucinogenic drugs. The remaining one-quarter of the 1,748 complaints in this category involved allegations against agencies or entities outside of the DOJ, including other federal agencies, local governments, or private businesses. We referred those complaints to the appropriate entity or advised complainants of the entity with jurisdiction over their allegations.

Of the 195 complaints that did warrant investigation, 170 involved what the report describes as "management issues" rather than civil liberties abuses, such as reports by "inmates [who] complained about the general conditions at federal prisons, such as the poor quality of the food or the lack of hygiene products."

The bottom line is that PATRIOT, while not itself a "law", merely modified existing statutes, mostly to bring them up to date (e.g., dealing with cell phones, wireless devices, email, etc. in the context of "wiretaps") and expand definitions in others. The result is imperfect, like all laws, and should be watched for abuse. But there is nothing inherently evil about it. Interested persons would do well, at a minimum, to at least read the text of the act.

Yes, you're right. Except for the part where you're completely wrong.

I am not more likely to hurt myself or an innocient bystander. There are irrefuteable statistics gathered by the government - not a partial agency - which support this.

From the US DOJ:

On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft.

This, despite the fact that according to the CDC (here's a Google cache) says that accidential firearm deaths are decreasing.At the same time firearm ownership is on a greater increase per capita in the US than it has been at any other time in history (for the last 20 years).

Actual accidential death counts make you appear to be a complete idiot, I might add. In 2002, there were 776 accidental firearm deaths. Contrast this to the 3,059 deaths due to medical care/surgery, the 3,377 due to exposure to smoke, fire, or flames, 3,842 drownings, 12,757 accidental poisonings, 13,322 accidental deaths from falls, or 43,354 accidental motor vehicle accidents. You are over 40 times more likely to die of Septicemia (?!) or renal failure than of accidental firearm discharge.

If you want to just look at the total firearm death rate, you're still looking at a very rediculous disproportion that points out your childish fears: 28,663 firearm deaths total, which is still less than Septicemia (which I just found out is blood poisoning) and renal failure (kidney failure). This is further marginalized if you're a convicted criminal, as the majority of firearm deaths are perpetrated by such people, against such people. (Sorry, but about 5 minutes of googling didn't turn up this information; if you're interested in the topic, however, I'm sure you'll find it, as I did at one point. It was an FBI-released document, if I recall correctly, composited from all US police precinct data.)

Seriously. Don't buy into the media's perpetration of firearms as a great evil. Don't fear guns in and of themselves: they're just tools. Fearing an inanimate object is just irrational emotionalism - not something I'd hope an educated citizen (as opposed to an uneducated consumer: someone that doesn't value their rights, know what they are, etc.) would fall prey to willingly.

It's always amusing to watch somebody not from the United States pull out the "executed" line.

Not that I defend everything our country does, but we do not execute most of our murderers and/or rapists. IANAL, so I don't know exactly what determines whether or not the prosecution will seek the death penalty (it has something to do with premeditation, intent, and how much you can pay your lawyers, I believe), but very few people are executed in the US every year. For example, last year, 59 inmates were executed.

Don't get me wrong - I think that executing anyone damages who we are (and I know this puts me in the minority here in the US). It's just that we're not as primitive as many people like to think we are.

A quick search of Google News yields about 200 stories on extradition of murder suspects to the United States, 8,000 stories about murders in the United States.

Copyright infringement can be prosecuted as a federal crime, a felony. Cybercrime

"The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 makes it a federal crime to obtain trade secrets--that is, any data of economic value which a company takes "reasonable measures" to protect--via theft or fraud."

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/eea.html

If it is civil, there's nothing that says you can't file a countersuit, no? And the whole preponderance of evidence bit does cut both ways doesn't it? To date, they have sued a dead woman, a Mac using grandmother for downloading hardcore rap on Kazaa, and a college professor for uploading his work on radio-selected quasars to his ftp host. That seems like a pretty good preponderance of evidence that their tracking and logging is sloppy and error prone.

You're right. Microsoft has never been named in a lawsuit and is clearly the safer choice in that respect.

There's a reason why the US Army uses video simulations, like Full Spectrum Warrior for example, to train its troops: it works.

I'll believe it works when I see the Army outfitting its troops with mouse-controlled machine guns that have zero kickback at all and tanks whose controls consist of "W A S D" buttons.

Until then I'll remain fully convinced that the reason the Army uses video games is because someone paid them to use video games, potentially as a marketing ploy, if not just good ol' nepotism.

As for Jack Thompson and anyone else who believes that games make people kill, keep in mind that in 2003 there were 0.1 murders per thousand people in this country, and with a population of almost 300M people at the time, that makes about 30K murder victims. With nearly 20 million copies of the latest GTA sold (according to Mr. Thompson's answers to the questions), that means that not a single person more than 0.15% of the GTA gaming population has killed someone (assuming that the vast majority of the gamers who bought the latest game also bought earlier GTA games). Considerably fewer than that when you consider the number of people who have killed more than one victim. And even fewer than that when you consider the number of people who kill yet have never even played a video game, much less GTA.

So while I'm not really taking a side here, because I haven't read the research, I'm imploring you to do the same, and keep an open mind about things. Just because something doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean there isn't a discernable effect in the entire population.

So, keeping an open mind, as you say -- where are the bodies? Youth murders peaked in 1993 and have fallen substantially since.

Looking at the big picture, the release of Doom I and the rise of ever more graphic and violent games seems to have sparked a long, steady *drop* in youth murders. It seems foolish to argue that the drop is actually caused by the increase in video game violence -- but it seems even more foolish to argue that there is a causal relationship when the data show an inverse correlation.

Take a look :

Statistics

from the link :

"Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993. "

"Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993."

"Violent crime rates declined for both males and females since 1994. Rates for males and females have been getting closer in recent years."

The last blurb I find particularly interesting.I am willing to bet that most girls DO NOT play violent video games, whereas most males probably do. Perhaps the games are allowing people to work out their aggression in other ways?

This chart is also interesting. Remember DOOM came out in 1993, at almost the peak of the chart.

Take a look :

Statistics

from the link :

"Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993. "

"Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993."

"Violent crime rates declined for both males and females since 1994. Rates for males and females have been getting closer in recent years."

The last blurb I find particularly interesting.I am willing to bet that most girls DO NOT play violent video games, whereas most males probably do. Perhaps the games are allowing people to work out their aggression in other ways?

This chart is also interesting. Remember DOOM came out in 1993, at almost the peak of the chart.

you do realise that if it CAN be proved that US corporations are behind this manipulation of the European democratic process then they are in breach of US law... also "threatening" to withdraw "investement" in a country if you don't get your way should also come under bribery as money is effectively involved... the Danes were most unimpressed and Microsoft had to hurridly kick up a misdirection statement...

You should quit your job when you can afford to, when the job is killing you, or you are under investigation and about to be indicted.

Yes it is a problem that I have to have one network and one internet for my Windows machines and another for my Unix boxes. Oh wait, thats right, they both use the TCP/IP standard.

I said mid 90s in that post. I was also not talking about TCP/IP. Still, now that you mention it, I'd like to point out that TCP/IP was an open standard which MS and Novell tried to replace with their own (netbeui/ipx) before the web really took off.

Well, at least your right that I can't have my linux box auth against the AD using kerberos or LDAP. Holy shit it worked, must be those standards again.

Again, I was talking mid 90s. LDAP was a fledgling open standard at the time when MS tried to pre-empt it with its own AD.

Again, back in the 90s DHCP was an open standard. MS win 2000 had a DHCP client that only talked nicely to its MS version in windows 2000 (IBM banned the use of win 2000 in production machines as a policy because of this). And DNS was the open standard which WINS tried to preempt with added netbeui goodness in NT4.

Do you see a pattern here?

So again, MS using standards and BSD software locks me in how? Exactly what interoperability problems were you referring to?

If you cannot see the pattern, then you are completely missing the way tactics being used and abandoned if necessary to advance MS strategy.

I am talking about the extend and extinguish phase. You are talking about the embrace phase.

Of course everything is going to interoperate ok when MS tries to stick to the standards that are pervasive nowadays. In the 90s MS was trying to embrace, extend and extinguish those particular standards pretty blatantly. I was drawing a lesson from history, the lesson being that if MS has a chance to lock people into their own proprietary standard it will pursue it. I am not making it up. The history of MS behaviour shows it. The Halloween memo documents it. The courts say MS is a convicted monopolist. I repeat, the lesson is that if MS has a chance to lock people into their own proprietary standards, it will pursue it.

GPL protects you from that lock in.

BSD feeds the very hand that tries to lock you in.

But, hey, it's a free country, and I respect your right to <heavy-metaphor patronize="on">plait the rope that the guy in the black mask and his mob of yokels will try to throttle you with. GPL/FSF will be the cavalry that saves your neck from getting stretched if that happens </heavy-metaphor>.

I logged out to post this, because I am an Anonymous Coward.

The Federal Aviation Administration does have a policy against traveling without ID. But it is not a secret law. It is not even a federal law. It is just a policy based on a memo by someone at the FAA. The 3 branches of government do not feel the need to correct the FAA, because so few people complain. CFRs are trumped-up administrative rules. Only USCs are laws, and there are no USCs requiring passengers to have photo IDs for domestic flights.

I know a little about governments and IDs.

The FAA policy reminds me of Florida Fish And Wildlife posting (everywhere) that it is illegal to carry a concealed gun in state parks. But the state attorney states that Fish And Wildlife has no statutory authority over guns and anyone with a conceal carry permit may carry in state parks.

I've had a similar problem with Walmart sporting goods managers telling me that it is against county law to sell ammo after 9 PM. It is not. It is just their store policy, but they want to use the excuse that it is a law.

The problem is not with the Federal government. The problem is with the general public. We need to have more people like John Gilmore. At a basic level, we're imposing this dictatorship on ourselves.

Perhaps we should start a petition to have the movie 1984 played on a TV network. Might wake up the sleeping public. Another step would be to have the Constitution and, at least, the first 10 Amendments printed on the back of our paper currency, not mystic, cryptic Masonic symbols.

But the US is hardly becoming a dictatorship. I consider this graphic as evidence of the health of our freedoms.
Got to love a government that trusts you to take a gun into a bank.
http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/all+united+ states

The reason that I voted for Bush/Republicans in 2004 is because Bush agrees the Second Amendment protects our individual right to own and carry guns.
http://www.nraila.org/images/Ashcroft.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

I fail to see how an administration that supports the right to own weapons that can overthrow a government is the bogeyman of tyranny. For those that don't think that civilians with their "puny" guns could take down a hypothetical American dictatorship, consider that there are more than 240 million guns owned by 85 million civilians in the US.

The 2nd Amendment is the most liberal and radical law in history. http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/radical.htm

To really understand the tone of the 1st and 2nd, one should read the preamble to the 10 amendments. (Usually not taught in government schools, so most have never heard of it) "The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

The first phrase of the 2nd is a declarative. It was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700's to include a preamble. The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters. The phrase "well regulated" means well-trained and well-equipped, in proper working order. Ex: "a well regulated clock." "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Interestingly, the Militia Act of 1792 was law until 1903 (updated by 10 USC). The Militia Act of 1792 stated "That each and every free able-bodied white ma

the SO ORDERED part. (Here's an example where Microsoft is--or seemingly should be--owned by the US.)

That aside, Daddy likes. I think we should^Wmust have this law and put the government back in par with us so we can be (at least feel) free again; otherwise we'll soon be in Soviet America where legislative malfeasance codifies us and the FBI spies y--oh wait...

You're talking about the Stots TemplateMaster. The license is even worse than you indicate - the license attempts to restrict resale of the physical object.

I've got serious objections to folks who try to "license" me physical objects. If I purchase it through retail channels, it's a "sale." I have certain ownership rights at that point. If I choose to give the object to my slacker brother-in-law, the manufacturer is SOL to do anything about the transfer. If you have a patent on the object, you have legal recourse to pursue me if I make a duplicate item. However, you still can't prevent me from giving the original to someone else.

Even the First Sale Doctrine in copyright law doesn't apply here. Assuming that you could actually copyright a physical object (i.e. a dovetailing jig,) I've still got the right to transfer ownership under the First Sale Doctrine. You can't take that away from me with some crummy EULA-esque piece of toilet paper jammed in the box.

The crossover of IP into meatspace is a bad thing. IP is not a physical object that I can bash into the curb if I want to. It deserves none of the ownership protections afforded to hardware. That includes patents. (Don't get me started on software patents being a horrible thing, or why I think IP *is* software ...) Copyright is the place for non-tangible items ... like software and IP. Unfortunately, the software industry seems to be purchasing politicians as fast as the entertainment industry is.

Two Words. Identity Theft.

In the US, the Social Security Number (SSN) is your "primary key". It's how everyone, the government, banks, employers, credit bureaus, etc keep track of you and your information.

From a statistical point of view, it's who you are.

Given a SSN, the name to which it belongs, and the most recently known address, anyone can now pretend to be you. Billy Bad Guy can now get a loan in your name. Billy can purchase a car. You are the one that is billed, not Billy.

With 145k identities (yeah.... right... only 145k out of 220 million) Billy is an instant Billionaire. All he has do to is get to a country with no extradition to the US, and begin living the life of luxury on your (or the Banks) dime.

The laws are getting better about protecting individuals once they have proven they are a victim. The trick is proving it wasn't you that bought that Lear jet on a janitors salary.

Want a link to the details? Here ya go:
What Are Identity Theft And Identity Fraud?

Whaddya mean your question was rhetorical?

--
<Insert Funny Sig Here>
mm

Er, actually, the very same Freedom of Information Act that grants you the right to look at the records that the government keeps about YOU also grants ChoicePoint the right to obtain those self same records. See here.

A vast amount of legal literature on civil law supports this use of terminology

What Microsoft did was a violation of the law

Not according to the judgement.

AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;

That's another difference, thanks for bringing that up. A judge has already declared Microsoft a monopoly. You can read the findings of fact here. You can do a find for "Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market".

As a convicted monopolist...

Microsoft was not "convicted" of anything. The company was the defendant in a civil action, not a crimial case. You sound like a fool using that ridiculous term.

Besides, FOIA does not mean that you can get all of the information that you want from the government. FOIA requests can be refused for a variety of reasons (these reasons are specified in the act). Requests for "sensitive" data are often refused. So computer security isn't moot anyway.

Go read up.

I would recommend reading this.

It's a moot point anyway. If you're a male United States citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, you are a member of the United States militia. I refer you to USC Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311.

Microsoft Purchases Evil From Satan

Whaddya mean, we can't believe everything we read on the WWW?

I'd check that one again. Half the trick of making such a deal would be maintaining plausible deniability.

Now we have reports that the Empire is unbundling WMP? That's gotta be crap.

Everyone knows that, once assimilated, middleware CANNOT be removed from WinBloze! The Emperor, himself, testified under oath (though the DoJ's documents are indexed SO poorly that it's near-impossible to find anything there) that he'd have to withdraw WinBloze from the market (and, I guess, go out of business) if ordered to undertake the Impossibility Of Removing Internet Exploiter. To back down from that position would open him up to perjury accusations. Don't hold your breath.

I'd keep looking, and (hopefully) find where he actually says this, were it not for the tendancy of The Emperor's very weaselly testimony to make me physically ill. He doesn't know what a browser is ("uh, it's kinda part of an OS, right?"), he doesn't understand how software of any kind (Browsers or OSsen) might be distributed, he doesn't remember _ever_ sending or receiving _any_ email, he has NO CLUE how the PC software market works (despite his public statements that he created it), except that there're all those terrible competitors out there that hate M$, and want its marketshare. oOps - "marketshare, what's that?" He doesn't understand how _anyone_ could accuse him af aything unethical, much less illegal. They're just jealous, because "a few people choose" to use Windoze, and all those "anti" websites badmouthing him just can't stand that.
Puh-lease.

You're sure, again, that he didn't purchase evil, outright?
Maybe he just bought the _licensing_ rights, with Satan retaining the copyright.
Yeah. That sounds more likely.

Surely selling prescription drugs in any kind of a shady manner (phony perscriptions, no prescriptions, not the drug advertised, etc) across state lines is a serious Federal offense, at least as serious as this drug crime is and should warrant its own Federal task force, RICO prosecutions, and the like.

I wonder why we haven't seen this and it takes MS/Pfizer joining forces to make an issue out of it. Does this make any sense?

Do you believe that Microsoft is practicing its right to innovate and serving the consumer when, as part of sizeable MS OS license discounts (again), it requires computer manufacturers not to offer Linux or other OS software on the same model of computer that the MS OS is offerred? This is current practice.

If such things are not innately good for the consumer, what can Microsoft do instead to help the consumer?

Sincerely,
Bryan Seigneur

It's also a crime to rape people, steal, view child porn using government property, armed robbery, and thousands more.

you're 100% right. they certainly do it all the time.

IBM still has OS/2 to push, but Microsoft pushed Windows 3.0 for $$ reasons rather than technical ones. If there had been no protected mode applications on Windows 3.0, Microsoft probably would have just trumpeted that as a feature. The US DOJ vs Microsoft antitrust trial "Findings of Fact", based on some very compelling testimony by IBM executive, revealed for all time that the only reason that IBM backed away from OS/2 was due to pressure from Microsoft. Here are some relevant quotes:

These are from the section on IBM under 'The Similar Experiences of Other Firms in Dealing with Microsoft.' Here's some quotes:

"Of course, accepting the terms would have required IBM, as a practical matter, to abandon its own operating system, OS/2."

"The message was clear: IBM could resolve the impasse ostensibly blocking the issuance of a Windows 95 license -- the royalties audit -- by de-emphasizing those products of its own that competed with Microsoft and instead promoting Microsoft's products."

"In sum, from 1994 to 1997 Microsoft consistently pressured IBM to reduce its support for software products that competed with Microsoft's offerings, and it used its monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems to punish IBM for its refusal to cooperate."

These were not opinions but were the conclusions of the court that were reached after all of the evidence was evaluated at trial. There were also findings on the application barrier to entry that prevented a non-Windows OS from gaining significant market share.

The result of the M$ vs IBM battle over OS/2 was probably a secret agreement that was likely similar in its effects on competition to the agreement that Sun recently reached with Microsoft. You can even hear Lou Gerstner, IBM's CEO at the time, describing his decision to stop fighting with Micosoft over OS/2 back in the mid-90s in this zipped up mp3.

Your memory must be pretty bad, since I can't evidence that a plaintiff has ever won such a case. Accessibility for even "official government websites" is strictly voluntary, and while the DOJ exhorts those agencies to make their web sites accessible, you will note there is no legal compulsion.

Now, maybe all web sites should be required by law (US law applying to the web, hm?) to be designed with accessibility in mind, and it's certainly a good idea to do so, in my opinion, for a host of reasons.

Copyright infringement was criminalized quite a few years back. Cybercrime

If you want to go this way with it:
Here

"mere presence at the crime scene and guilty knowledge of the crime are generally not enough for aiding and abetting."

"The key elements are the defendant's association with the venture, participating in it as in something he wished to bring about, and seeking to make it succeed."

With merely a hyperlink, and no other contact between the linker and the person linked to, there's no participation, there's no seeking to make the crime succeed.

Besides, copyright is a civil matter. I know it's a lot for you guys to understand the difference between a criminal offense and a civil matter like copyright infringement, but please try to keep up.

Amiga Trombone said: In the process of earning his money, Gates' licensing DOS and it's descendants to all comers created a standard hardware platform for personal computers, thereby forcing hardware vendors to compete on price and innovation.

Microsoft, which makes the MS-DOS and Windows operating systems used in more than 120 million personal computers, was accused of building a barricade of exclusionary and unreasonably restrictive licensing agreements to deny others an opportunity to develop and market competing products.

Amiga Trombone said: This in turn facilitated the growth of ancillary hardware, software, and tech support industries, providing thousands, if not millions, of people a living.

412. Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft=s actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft=s core products. Microsoft=s past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft=s self-interest.

Doesn't exactly sound like MS "facilitated the growth of ancillary hardware, software, and tech support industries", to me. Ok, maybe the support "industries", but that's more revealing of the incompetence of Microsoft (which is why they needed to use illegal tactics to secure their market) rather than the "advancements" you say were made possible by Mr. Gates.

What advancements never got off the ground because they were precluded from the market by the monopolist? Cheap computing power was already available, as was a standard platform. No one can measure what was lost by the anti-competitive, market destroying actions Microsoft used to prevent being supplanted and replaced by better systems.

Amiga Trombone said: In the process of earning his money, Gates' licensing DOS and it's descendants to all comers created a standard hardware platform for personal computers, thereby forcing hardware vendors to compete on price and innovation.

Microsoft, which makes the MS-DOS and Windows operating systems used in more than 120 million personal computers, was accused of building a barricade of exclusionary and unreasonably restrictive licensing agreements to deny others an opportunity to develop and market competing products.

Amiga Trombone said: This in turn facilitated the growth of ancillary hardware, software, and tech support industries, providing thousands, if not millions, of people a living.

412. Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft=s actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft=s core products. Microsoft=s past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft=s self-interest.

Doesn't exactly sound like MS "facilitated the growth of ancillary hardware, software, and tech support industries", to me. Ok, maybe the support "industries", but that's more revealing of the incompetence of Microsoft (which is why they needed to use illegal tactics to secure their market) rather than the "advancements" you say were made possible by Mr. Gates.

What advancements never got off the ground because they were precluded from the market by the monopolist? Cheap computing power was already available, as was a standard platform. No one can measure what was lost by the anti-competitive, market destroying actions Microsoft used to prevent being supplanted and replaced by better systems.

Microsoft are criminals. Nobody should be doing business with them.

When you have free market, people complain, when you don't have a free market, people complain. Make up your minds.

P.S. I don't like linux. *Shrug*

While they may be intentionally stunting their software search capabilities, it seems less likely that this is some malicious attempt on our freedoms and very likely that it's pure laziness on their part. The government has never been too happy about having to handle FOIA requests because they take time and money. When someone comes along and makes one, it's often easier for them to fight it than to use the resources required to dig up the info.

As one who works for the federal government, the word came down from the Department of Justice a while back that agencies would be supported if they decided to resist FOIA requests. Here's a link to the most public declaration of this policy:

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2001foiapost19.h tm

Also, FOIA requests are NOT free to the requestor --- the agency is allowed to bill for its time and reproduction costs.

Warez has barter value. It no longer matters whether or not you are in the game for the money:

The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works. The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act

The NET Act, signed by Clinton in 1997, makes it pretty damn clear where Congress stands on the quesion of whether copyright infringement is theft.

Selling a boxed version on Ebay or on the street is a different story. It seems the DOJ is trying their best to blur these lines. Good for the real software pirates, but bad for P2Pers.

The warez Half-Life is still Half-LIfe. The posting doesn't become legal because it "ships" without the cardboard box.

The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act Signed by Clinton in 1997.

With copyright infringement becomes a felony, calling it theft gives fair warning to those who are playing with fire.

The law does not agree with you. For a summary of U.S. federal law and practice: Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section CCIPS

For NET Act changes to Title 17 and Title 18: The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act

The law does not agree with you. For a summary of U.S. federal law and practice: Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section CCIPS

For NET Act changes to Title 17 and Title 18: The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act

A felony is a crime for which you can be imprisoned for one year or more. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/kidspage/glossary. html

It doesn't strictly have anything to do with the heinousness of the crime, just whatever some legislator decided was worth at least one year.

Technically "theft" or not, there are federal statutes that specify what felony copyright infringment is, based on certain dollar amounts of product involved, and apparently these guys conspired to commit this felony.

For the DOJ website: "The reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies of 1 or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more constitutes a felony, with a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. The reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies of 1 or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of more than $1,000 constitutes a misdemeanor, with a one-year maximum sentence and a fine of up to $100,000."

See http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/netsum.ht m

Your gun analogy is a great one. A gun does not commit a crime on its own. In order for a gun to do harm, it must be operated by a human with intent to commit that crime. Over the last 10 years, our legislative system has focuses heavily on keeping guns out of the hands of criminal offenders by way of background checks and prosecution of offenses. As a result, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfata lno.htm/, violent crime involving firearms has plummeted since 1993.

In turn, P2P software does not proliferate copyrighted material on its own its own. Multiple people must have the intent to use the P2P software to trade the illegal material. Consequently, legislatures should take a note from the success of reducing the number of guns used in violent crimes and prosecute the criminal end users who knowingly break the law.

Re:Apply the same to guns? (Score:3, Interesting)
by Egonis (155154) on Wednesday January 19, @10:09AM (#11408055)

I myself was born in Canada, and still live here -- although alot of people have guns for hunting purposes, very few (comparatively) gun related murders occur, is this a result of population difference?

Yes.

For one thing, the United States has about 10 times the population of Canada: roughly 290 million vs 30 million, so the U.S. is going to have more of everything in terms of absolute numbers. I don't have the crime rates handy right now.

But there are important demographical differences.

About 12% of the U.S. population is black, but 25% of violent crimes are committed by blacks (for whatever reason. I am not suggesting any causes, just stating a fact.) Only 2% of Canada's population is black.

This is about 3 times the amount of violent crime committed by a person with a gun (7%), even though gun owners are 15% to 30% of the U.S. population (depending on whose figures you accept).

Even a famous 1988 study, which compared higher homicide rates in Seattle to lower homicide rates in Vancouver -- and blamed the difference on lax U.S. gun laws -- showed that the homicide rate for whites was lower in the U.S. city than the Canadian city. That fact was swept under the rug.

U.S. crime figures fromm U.S. Department of Justice. National Crime Victimization Survey.
Criminal Victimization in the United States. (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 Statistical Tables).

Table 40: "Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived race of offender"
Table 46: "Percent distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived race of offenders"
Table 66: "Percent of incidents, by victim-offender relationship, type of crime and weapons use"

Available on the internet at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm

See actual data at the end of this post.

Unlike the FBI Uniform Crime Report, which is based on arrests, the NCVS is based on surveys of crime victims, so it's harder to claim that they're racially biased (especially since blacks are also dispraportionately victims of crime.

1996
Table 40: 6,930,880 single-offender violent crimes. 26.2% committed by black offenders
Table 46: 2,010,170 muliple-offender violent crimes. 30.4% committed by all-black offenders
Table 66: 8,316,180 crimes of violence. 10.2% committed by an offender with a gun

1997
Table 40: 6,737,250 single-offender violent crimes. 25.3% committed by black offenders
Table 46: 1,757,460 multiple-offender violent crimes. 29.1% committed by all-black offenders
Table 66: 7,911,520 crimes of violence. 8.6% committed by an offender with a gun

1998
Table 40: 6,352,230 single-offender violent crimes. 22.5% committed by black offenders
Table 46: 1,660,000 multiple-offender violent crimes. 25.9% committed by all-black offenders
Table 66: 7,433,670 crimes of violence. 7.5% committed by an offender with a gun

1999
Table 40: 5,788,490 single-offender violent crimes. 24.1% committed by black offenders
Table 46: 1,465,510 multiple-offender violent crimes. 27.1% committed by all-black offenders
Table 66: 6,723,930 crimes of violence. 6.8% committed by an offender with a gun

2000
Table 40: 4,948,330 single-offender violent crimes. 24.1% committed by black offenders
Table 46: 1,258,010 multiple-offender violent crimes. 27.2% committed by all-black offenders
Table 66: 5,815,540 crimes of violence. 7.4% committed by an offender with a gun

2001
Table 40: 4,463,690 single-offender violent crimes. 24.6% committed by black offenders
Table 46: 1,176,880 multiple-offender violent c

Gunter Hefner, formerly Infineon's vice president of sales for memory products, is now US Inmate #98184-011, according to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Heinrich Florian, former vice president for sales marketing and logistics for memory products, is now US Inmate #98182-011.

Infineon had to pay $160 million in fines.

Samsung, Hynix, and Micron have also been implicated. The investigation continues.

That Iraq was the most secular country in the Middle East after Turkey only makes your statement all the more ridiculous.
Are you reffering perhaps to the Wahhabis? Or the Mujahadeen? You know that those people are not from Iraq right?
I never said or eluded from the fact the war in Iraq was not about Islamic extremists. The whole point about the Iraq war was twofold. The main reason was strategic in ensuring stability in the Middle East by promoting democracy. The second was to get rid of a thug no other nation was willing to do. In fact, Russia, France and Germany were the main countries opposed to this war because they were knee shit-deep in dubious activities such as the selling of arms and maintaining huge oil and construction contracts with Saddam. America might be the first country to come to your mind. Hence, I find so much irony in these political conflicts of interests.
Yes, Osama Bin Laden called a press conference in 1998 of mostly Pakistani journalists and give them some good old demogougery, and the video was not shown in the US until after Sept2001. Amazingly convenient that.
al Qaida bombed the the World Trade Center towers in 1993 using a van packed with explosives and detonated it in the parking garage. If that's not an official declaration of war, I don't know what is!.
What really pisses me off is that Clinton did nothing about this threat durring his two terms in office. Had he had the balls to do something about it rather then protecting his legacy, there would be a very good chance we douldn't be in this mess. But I digress.
Sure it is. The fanatical muslim hordes are about to overrun your country at any minute. Better start buying some ammo and canned beans.
You might want to check out "The War on Terrorism: Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida" webpage. It contains over 130+ links regarding official reports and research regarding the subject. Of course, you will find none of that Michael Moore propaganda BS there. Sorry to disappoint...
http://www.lib.ecu.edu/govdoc/terrorism.html
Yes, but just because that's what you are seeing doesn't mean it's true. You probably think that all of the homicides in the US are committed by black men too. But don't let the facts get in the way of sky falling on your head.
I don't think, I KNOW it to be true. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics; blacks were seven time more likely to commit homicides then whites in the year 2002. As for why this is the case, I don't have solid answer. It could be black culture, genetics, or a mix of both. Who knows for sure? But the facts do state none the less. Just click on the offical link to see for yourself.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
I'm wondering. Do you know who supplied Iran with weapons for 8 years during the Iran/Iraq war?
Without question, it was Israel. But the political landscape changed dramatically after the war. And soon, that status of Iran went from "friend" to "foe". At the time it seemed like a good idea in the best interest of Israel to ally with Iran against Iraq. But again, the 80s are over and shit happens. Sometimes you just got to deal with events as the happen in real-time.
Yada, yada, yada. You heard that on talk back radio right? Iran had a democracy before the UK/US interfered and there is internal pressure on the theocracy to move back to a democracy again. Besides which, any election in Iraq is almost sure to be won by the Shia majority, which would suit Tehran just fine. This is really enjoyable! It's like arguing with the bullshit they broadcast on television.
Democrocy = Mullas losing their grip of theocratic control. It's clearly a conflict of interest. But time will tell as it's too early for me to comment. I'll just stand aside and pay close attention in the mean time as the events unfold.
Would that be the views

Monsanto's very own website has a press release detailing a settlement with the SEC and DOJ for bribing officials in Indonesia and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Indymedia has further links.