Slashdot Mirror

Mitnick didn't hurt anyone? You've got to be kidding. Deep down inside I know you're a troll and I really shouldn't respond, but what the hell.

Why don't you go have a look at this before you say Mitnick didn't hurt anyone.

"...Mitnick admitted that he broke into a number of computer systems and stole proprietary software belonging to Motorola, Novell, Fujitsu, Sun Microsystems and other companies. Mitnick admitted using a number of tools to commit his crimes, including "social engineering," cloned cellular telephones, "sniffer" programs placed on victims' computer systems and hacker software programs..."

So, Mitnick admits that he's a theif, but you still don't believe it. Let me ask you a question: Are the X-Men human?

"... As part of his scheme, Mitnick acknowledged altering computer systems belonging to the University of Southern California and using these computers to store programs that he had misappropriated. He also admitted that he stole E-mails, monitored computer systems and impersonated employees of victim companies, including Nokia Mobile Phones, Ltd., in his attempt to secure software that was being developed by those companies..."

Again here, he admits to being a theif.

"...the many victims of Mitnick's conduct suffered millions of dollars in damages resulted from lost licensing fees, marketing delays, lost research and development, and repairs made to compromised computer systems..."

And the above site doesn't even mention all the cellular cloning that he did while he was running from the law. Gee, I wonder who paid for all of those cellular calls? I wonder if it was the same people who Mitnick "didn't" steal from, in your words.

He's a criminal, plain and simple. If Mitnick stole from nobody, then why don't you just turn off your firewall, and post your credit card numbers online, so all the little Kevin wanna-be's can "not steal" from you too.

Funny thing is he was on probation for a cell phone cloning case from 1989 when he was arrested in 1995. Then he went on a two year hacking spree, all the while cloning more cell phones!

I'll say it again. He's a criminal, plain and simple. And there's no way in hell he deserves the cult-hero status he's attained. There's also no way in hell he deserves the millions he's going to make from his name.

There's plenty of people who are mistreated before, during and after their incarceration. If you want a cult hero, why don't you choose one of them who's innocent.

The .vbs viruses... they seem to have come from Columbia. A look at the source of one of them reveals
rem "Plan Colombia" virus v1.0

As a Columbia student, Columbia resident, Columbia wearer, Columbia listener, Columbia purchaser, and Colombia consumer -- and as an American, patriot, and staunch promoter of all that is good and right in this world -- I beg you to kindly note the small, but significant, difference between Columbia and Colombia.

Think of the children! Otherwise, the terrorists have already won.

Thank you.

Hey cool! You mean, like Robin Hood? Yeah man, I can see that. He like robbed from the rich to give to the poor!

Robin Hood was an outlaw as well, found guilty by the Evil Sherrif of committing terrible crimes and stealing for poor defenceless rich people.

Despite some evidence that suggests he had a taste for violence, and in fact helped rich people as well, of course everybody loves Robin, don't they.

Anyway, back to the point, Bill made a lot of money out of the markets precisely by so effectively removing that freedom. He should be punished like anybody else who attempts to play the markets, but he hasn't been. Giving away lots of money to charity doesn't make it OK by the way, if that were the case all drug dealers would have to do to get off the books would be to give away some of their personal fortune to good causes.

Considering he basically did steal that money and even got found guilty of it, I don't see why his charitable preferences should override mine. He gave $10 billion to India to fight aids yes? He also gave a lot more than that to fight Linux in the very same country, not a good cause I'd have chosen to donate to (and I do donate to charity by the way).

$24 Billion is more than most developed countries in the world will put into that sort of work in our lifetimes.

Since when? Governments give huge amounts of money away as part of aid initiatives and so on. Britain still pays out large sums of money to help prop up parts of Africa, as well as supporting many charities through grants. Other governments do similar things. Often it has strings attached of course - Bill can give away all his money and see it disappear down the drains through long term corruption and mismanagement but governments who represent the people need to be a bit more careful, which is why such organisations often require governmental reforms to go along with aid.

Oh and finally, don't forget that if him or his company had paid income tax, then a portion of that money would have gone towards such aid, and (at least in theory) the people would have chosen where the aid went or at least had some influence over it.

Perhaps it involved a certain trial involving a certain freedom.

Iraq has a share in the responsibility for those civilian deaths. Iraq uses resources intended for civilians for military and governmental purposes, then blames the U.N. and the U.S. for killing its people with sanctions.
The war that caused the bombing of Iraq's infrastructure was directly instigated by Iraq, not anyone else.
(feel free to debate contributing causes, but it was Iraq that fired the first shot.)

While there are six times as many blacks as whites in prison by population (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm), those in prison in the U.S. have committed crimes. And the number of blacks and whites in prison is very nearly equal (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf ). They are not unjustly rounded up, unlike the targets of Hitler's regime. The only appropriate question is whether governmentally-changeable societal conditions in predominantly black neighborhoods foster criminal behavior. Otherwise, the results are not the resposibility of the United States government - they are the responsibility of those who are committing crimes.
And there are private organizations that are taking it upon themselves to help those neighborhoods.

The United States allows dissenting views to exist. There are not book-burning sessions.
And questions like yours (and replies like mine) are allowed to be raised, which allows Hitler-esque regimes to be stopped before they may grow.

IHBT, I know...

Someone out there in the world makes a living as a Web accessibility consultant???

You can check the Legal immigration numbers for 2001 here:
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/ne wsrels/Immstats.htm
Some points to note:
Total number of Legal immigrants based on employment from all over the world in 2001 - 179,195 (This includes employees and family members)
Total number of immigrants from India in 2001 - 70,290
(This includes employment based as well as family based immigrants, most of whom came to US in 70's and 80's in professions like Medicine as doctors, dentists etc. and the immigration process is purposefully so slow and painful that when one of my friend's mom applied for his green card, it took 8 years and he had to stay unmarried to stay eligible. Most people give up on that.)

Also, there is a worldwide limit on number of employment based immigration and as far as I know it is 192,074 which is less than 250,000 that you are talking about.
If you don't believe me, check the numbers on INS website here http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statist ics/imm2001.pdf Also, keep in mind that out of those 192,074, about 40,040 are for persons with exceptional ability with proven record in international media etc. This number is never completely filled. Therefore, the number of legal employment based immigration is very small)
Also, do you know that the number of Mexicans who legally immigrated to US in 2001 is 206,426 which is a fraciton of the ones who illegally migrated and will eventually get amnesty by government for votes and then will bring all there family members as legal immigrants taking up the per year quota which could have gone to other eligible, educated immigrants.
Last but not the least, don't be picking on the typos. I have 2 IM chat windows open as I type this that are distracting me...

You can check the Legal immigration numbers for 2001 here:
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/ne wsrels/Immstats.htm
Some points to note:
Total number of Legal immigrants based on employment from all over the world in 2001 - 179,195 (This includes employees and family members)
Total number of immigrants from India in 2001 - 70,290
(This includes employment based as well as family based immigrants, most of whom came to US in 70's and 80's in professions like Medicine as doctors, dentists etc. and the immigration process is purposefully so slow and painful that when one of my friend's mom applied for his green card, it took 8 years and he had to stay unmarried to stay eligible. Most people give up on that.)

Also, there is a worldwide limit on number of employment based immigration and as far as I know it is 192,074 which is less than 250,000 that you are talking about.
If you don't believe me, check the numbers on INS website here http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statist ics/imm2001.pdf Also, keep in mind that out of those 192,074, about 40,040 are for persons with exceptional ability with proven record in international media etc. This number is never completely filled. Therefore, the number of legal employment based immigration is very small)
Also, do you know that the number of Mexicans who legally immigrated to US in 2001 is 206,426 which is a fraciton of the ones who illegally migrated and will eventually get amnesty by government for votes and then will bring all there family members as legal immigrants taking up the per year quota which could have gone to other eligible, educated immigrants.
Last but not the least, don't be picking on the typos. I have 2 IM chat windows open as I type this that are distracting me...

When are we going to see an H1-B program for lawyers and MBAs?

Before addressing the authentication for the four specific computers, an error in Mr. Allison's affidavit must be corrected. In his affidavit, Mr. Allison writes: "Many methods are available to create an exact duplicate; however, only one method - the GNU/Linux routine dd - has been approved by the National Institute of Standards and Technologies." Allison Affidavit at 3. This statement is simply wrong. The National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) does not "approve" software, it merely tests it and then publishes the results of its tests.

Not that we're going OT or anything, but I would like to see statistics broken down by circumstances, criminal history, etc. Recall that rape used to be punished by death, esp. if the offender was black and the victim white. It does sometimes draw a life sentence now.

Some BJS sentencing stats. The 1998 stats for state sentencing indicate a mean sentence of 147 months (12+ years), of which on average a prisoner will serve about 60% (7+ years). I'd like to see a graph of the sentences, but that's me. They excluded life sentences from the averages, distorting the mean (IMHO they should have use3d actuarial tables to estimate life expectancy). Finally, the median would be a better measure here than the mean.

ANYWAY I don't see how Mitnick would preferred this sentence. He would have served it in "the big house" instead of pretrial detention and would come away with the tag of violent perverted felon.

You have to respect someone who managed to stay on the run for over a year, create a fake identity, and get a high paying job at a law firm with that identity.

Respect him ... for being a professional liar? Here are some other talented fugitives. Who cares how "bad" they are.

Too bad he got caught in the end, after all it was nothing but a set up for the goverment to make an example out of someone...

Not really. This is a guy who fled supervised release, was on his third trip or so through the courts for the same basic offenses, continuing committing crimes on the run, and has shown only the vaguest signs of remorse. That's all without mentioning anything about tech stuff. Yes, they made a great example of him for other prospective fugitives and computer snoops.

DOJ's missteps do not make Mitnick smell like a rose. For perspective the DOJ provides a nice table of cybercrime cases -- Mitnick ("notorious hacker") has ample company.

Here is a link to the dept of justice site that actually gives the facts. Gee, wouldn't that be different, eh? The facts that is...

Here's a nice snippet backing my statement:

Mitnick was sentenced today by United States District Senior Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer. The 46-month term was agreed to by Mitnick and the United States Attorney's Office. Mitnick was previously sentenced by Judge Pfaelzer to an additional 22 months in prison, this for possessing cloned cellular phones when he was arrested in North Carolina in 1995 and for violating terms of his supervised release imposed after being convicted of an unrelated computer fraud in 1989

Well, if that's really true (anecdotal as it is, and perhaps not taking into account varying strategies in different cultures for preventing home invasion), that would sort of reflect more on people the UK's failure to take precautions against crime more than anything else, since the UK currently has a per capita burglary rate of 30% higher than the U.S. (higher assault and mugging rates as well) The U.S. leads in the far less common murder rate: but even with our gun laws loosening, and the UK's tightening, our rates are dropping and theirs are going up.
The only really conclusive effect we can find behind this seems to be differences in the likihood of getting caught, not necessarily gun ownership.
DOJ study

And how about let's provide the link: Computer Data and the Federal Rules of Evidence Short summary: Despite all the technical reasons why logs may be unreliable, the case law indicates that without evidence of tampering, and if logs are used for day-to-day business purposes, they can be admitted into court as if they were expert witness testimony.

The vast majority of illegal aliens in the US are migrant workers from Mexico. Following Mexico are El Salvador, Guatamala and Canada.

Migrant workers from Canada? You must be joking. Perhaps you are thinking of retired Torontonians living in Florida, collectively known as "snowbirds".

1. Mexico
2. Germany
3. Phillipines
4. Italy
5. Canada

9) Develop a suicidal immigration policy that keeps out educated, hardworking men and women from friendly nations and, instead, takes in vast numbers of angry, uneducated immigrants from nations that hate us.

9) Develop a suicidal immigration policy that keeps out educated, hardworking men and women from friendly nations and, instead, takes in vast numbers of angry, uneducated immigrants from nations that hate us.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.h tm

This looks like a crime to me.

Actually, It was an amicable deal between both of them, here is the link to the DOJ,s Anti-Trust issue on the Deal

Justice Department Files Antitrust Suit Challenge


And the following analysis of the deal
The Attempted Microsoft - Intuit Merger

I'm ignorant, who is this guy and why would finding him be too embarrasing?

James Bulger was the leader of the Boston mob for quite a few years and, at the same time, an FBI informant. However, as it turns out, he was running his FBI handlers rather than the other way around. In effect, the FBI kept Bulger out of jail while he murdered and extorted merrily along for years. His main handler, fomer FBI agent John Connolly was recently sentenced to 10 years in prison. But plenty more FBI agents were involved. Futher complicating matters, James Bulger's brother-- William Bulger-- was the dictatorial ruler of the Massachusetts senate at the time and currently heads the state university system. In the last couple weeks, we've learned that William has been in touch with his fugitive brother and urged him NOT to turn himself in. William just recently took the 5th when forced to testify before Congress on the matter.

So this is a very messy case. Likely the FBI is using this initiative in part to dispel the notion that they don't really want to catch James Bulger for fear of further embarassment.

National Institute of Justice Firearms and Crime page.
National Criminal Justice Reference Center. The most useful functions are abstract search and full-text search. Try searching for "firearms" or "assault weapons," etc.

From Guns Used in Crime (1995):

- From 1899 to 1993, 223 million guns were manufactured in the U.S. 79M rifles, 77M handguns, 66M shotguns.
- Criminals prefer easily concealable handguns over any other type of firearm.
- 1.26 million handguns remain in the National Crime Information Center stolen gun file.
- 240,000 machineguns are in the National Firearms registry. Of these, 7,700 remain in the stolen gun file.
- From 1982 to 1993, 687 police officers were killed by firearms other than their own. Of these, 25% were killed with a .38 caliber handgun. 12% with .357 caliber, 9.5% with 9mm, 7.4% with 12 gauge shotgun.
- A 1991 survey of state prison inmates throughout the country found that assault weapons such as Uzi, AK, AR-15, etc. were carried by less than 1% of the inmates during the commission of the crime for which they were incarcerated.

National Institute of Justice Firearms and Crime page.
National Criminal Justice Reference Center. The most useful functions are abstract search and full-text search. Try searching for "firearms" or "assault weapons," etc.

From Guns Used in Crime (1995):

- From 1899 to 1993, 223 million guns were manufactured in the U.S. 79M rifles, 77M handguns, 66M shotguns.
- Criminals prefer easily concealable handguns over any other type of firearm.
- 1.26 million handguns remain in the National Crime Information Center stolen gun file.
- 240,000 machineguns are in the National Firearms registry. Of these, 7,700 remain in the stolen gun file.
- From 1982 to 1993, 687 police officers were killed by firearms other than their own. Of these, 25% were killed with a .38 caliber handgun. 12% with .357 caliber, 9.5% with 9mm, 7.4% with 12 gauge shotgun.
- A 1991 survey of state prison inmates throughout the country found that assault weapons such as Uzi, AK, AR-15, etc. were carried by less than 1% of the inmates during the commission of the crime for which they were incarcerated.

The Department of Justice has gun crime data at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm which might be good to combine with the CDC data.

Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Er, no. The murder rate was 5.7x, the rape rate was 3x, as of 1996. source.

And note that England came off much, much worse in the victim survey than it did in the police statistics. The UK rates of robbery, assault, burglary and theft were all about twice the US rate(*) in 1995 -- a big change from a decade or two ago when the UK seemed like such a civilised place.

(*to be more precise, they were 1.4x, 2.3x, 1.7x, and 2.2x respectively)

Er, no. The murder rate was 5.7x, the rape rate was 3x, as of 1996. source.

And note that England came off much, much worse in the victim survey than it did in the police statistics. The UK rates of robbery, assault, burglary and theft were all about twice the US rate(*) in 1995 -- a big change from a decade or two ago when the UK seemed like such a civilised place.

(*to be more precise, they were 1.4x, 2.3x, 1.7x, and 2.2x respectively)

Offenders

• According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

  • a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
  • a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
  • family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
    
• During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
• On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
• Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.

80% of guns used in crimes were obtained ILLEGALLY! What will be accomplished by banning or further restricting guns? Someone that wants a gun will get a gun. Drugs are illegal but no one would argue that they're not prevalent and easily obtainable in ANY city or town or any other part of North America (that's right, you Canucks have a problem too). So, what has been accomplished by criminalizing drugs?

Recreational Pharmaceuticals ["Drugs"] are not legal to import, export, own, possess, distribute, sell, buy, smoke, snort, inject, use, look at, touch, own, have, carry, transport, trade or in any other way shape or form [insert transitive or instransitive verb here]. Nobody would argue that the "good guys" are winning the "war on drugs". In fact... it's a disgrace. The only one who would argue that is an inmate so that point is moot.

Somehow though, the anti-gun zealots would have us all believe that if guns were illegal; If there were no "gun shows"; If it were illegal to own / possess a hand gun; If nobody had access to guns; If we criminalize any kind of gun ownership; We'd all be better off and live in a "safer" society where you couldn't get pistol-whipped in East L.A. by a gang member.

Isn't it obvious that all we have to do is outlaw guns?

Accidents aside (people get killed accidentally on ladders ) - Guns are not any more lethal or dangerous than any other item that would be used to commit a crime. If someone robs the 7/11 with a Louisville slugger and beats the clerk to death would you say that's "better" or "safer" than had the perpetrator used another item for a weapon - say a gun or a knife? The clerk's still dead and the perpetrator is still a murderer. How is it different? A homicide is a homicide is a homicide.

There is no cause-effect relationship between guns and crime. Guns do not commit crimes or cause them to be committed. By owning / possessing / handling a gun, one does not become predisposed to criminal activity - Just as owning a knife doesn't predispose someone to stabbing their neighbor. If that were true - we need to disarm law enforcement and the military right away! If I steal a credit card number by using a computer vs. me obtaining said credit card by picking someone's pocket the result is the same. I'm going to use it to buy a truckload of Bawls from thinkgeek.net. Either way, I'm stealing. I'm still guilty of forgery / fraud / theft. Take away the computer and I'll find another way to steal credit card numbers. Take away the guns and they'll find another way to rob banks / convenience stores / gas stations / commit rape / etc. etc.

As for the issue of accidents. Well, anyone can misuse just about anything found in an "average" household. When people don't use things responsibly - bad things can happen. When alcohol is abused or used irresponsibly, people could be killed operating a motor vehicle. Drunk people fall off ladders and sustain injury too. We call those people stupid or irresponsible and submit them for Darwin awards. There are countless digitless/limbless people in the world due to carelessness with a chainsaw. You wouldn't give your child any more access to a chainsaw or drain cleaner than you would your gun so why is this such an issue? Because of ignorance and irresponsiblity. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon and pontificate on the "vile" nature and "evil" thing called the gun.

"Prohibition" didn't work in the 20's. The "war on drugs" isn't working now. Criminalizing guns won't work in the future. Criminals got the booze then. They get the drugs now. They'll get the guns tomorrow. The only people that suffer are law-abiding citizens that obey the rules in the first place and use the items responsibly for legitimate purposes.

Perhaps things would be different if every time someone committed a crime with a hammer it made the home page of cnn.com/usatoday.com. Perhaps people would feel differently about water if every time a child drowned it made headlines. After all, everyone knows that we should ignore the responsibility of the parent / guardian and placed the blame true criminal - the molecule H2O.

In parting, let me say that it should be obvious that I'm a proponent of responsiblity not criminalization. I believe that people are responsible for themselves and their actions regardless of the topic - guns, drugs, alcohol. Unfortunately, the topic of gun "control" has turned political. That's never a good turn. The quick way to turn an issue into a cloudy, un-solvable problem with mostly bad solutions is to politicize it.

There are some great charts in the overview page that show how much difference a decade or two can make in this sort of argument.

a good place for statistics taken from the UCR and other governmental sources is: US Department of Justice Stats

very nice graphs and explanations

This might help.

The fact that the gun crowd wants to look at the rate of violent crime, rather than the per capita rate of gun deaths makes me wonder if they are trying to divert attention away from a statistic that doesn't support their position.

It's worth noting that most of the per capita rate of gun deaths in the US is accounted for by suicides. If risk of being killed by somebody else is what most concerns you, that's a much smaller number than the overall rate of gun deaths.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.h tm

Answer: It's false. You're more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK today than in the US. That wasn't the case 20 years ago, but it is now. "Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States." Check it out.

Try this link for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. A bunch of data from the FBI and law enforcement from around the country with a break down by crime, by firearm type, and lots more. Also check the FBI's annual Crime in the US report (I think that's what it's called). Hard to get more official numbers than the BJS. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Sorry, someone else may have already provided this information for you, but I get tired of sifting through flamewars to get to meaningful information.

I was once looking for unbiased gun violence statistics, myself, and I came across unbiased statistical information from the following sources:

United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
This site page presents firearms and crime statistics.

United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention
This page links to several data sets that present mortality and morbidity statistics, including deaths and injuries from firearms

United States 2000 Census
This site contains information about gun ownership and gun-owner demographics.

I hope you find this to be more useful than all of the squabbling. :)

From WORLD FACTBOOK OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS -- NORWAY:

excerpt 1:

PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL PROCESS

1. Rights of the accused.

*Rights of the accused. The rights of the accused are described in the Criminal Procedures Act. The accused must be informed of the nature of the charge(s) brought against him or her upon being arrested and attending court for the first time. The accused must also be given the chance to refute the grounds on which the charge is based. (Criminal Procedures Act, Sect.90,92,171).
Although the accused has a general right to attend court proceedings and to summon and examine witnesses, the court can order him or her to leave the courtroom while a witness is being examined "if there is special reason to fear that an unreserved statement will not otherwise be made." The accused must be informed subsequently of the proceedings that occurred in his or her absence. In special circumstances, such as if national security interests are at stake, the accused may be entirely excluded from the proceedings. (Criminal Procedures Act, Sect. 135,245).
The court's verdict must be communicated to the accused as soon as possible, along with information on rights of appeal. Court judgements and orders are to be accompanied by reasons. (Criminal Procedures Act, Sect.39-41,43,52).
The accused has the right to bring appeals against court verdicts, both on questions of fact and questions of law. There are, however, several limitations on the exercise of this right. For example, appeals to the Supreme Court, which is the highest judicial body, can only take place if permitted by the Court's Appeals Selection Committee (Kjoeremlsutvalget). Moreover, the general rule is that such appeals can only be based on alleged errors of law. In other words, the Supreme Court is unable to try questions of evidence related to the issue of guilt. (Administration of Justice in Norway, 1980: 65-66; Criminal Procedures Act, as amended new Chapt 23, Sect. 323, 1993).
The accused do not have the right to have their cases tried by jury. As a basic rule, however, appeals from verdicts reached by the court of first instance on cases concerning felonies punishable by more than 6 years' imprisonment are dealt with by the High Court (Lagmannsrett). In these cases, there is a jury (lagrett) present to decide the question of guilt. (Criminal Procedures Act, new Chapt 24, as amended, 1993).

*Assistance to the accused. As a general rule, the accused is entitled to the assistance of defense counsel of his or her choice during all stages of the judicial process. The accused is also provided with the free assistance of defense counsel, chosen by the court, during the main court hearing. There are several exceptions to the latter rule, such as if the case involves a
certain minor offense, like driving under the influence of alcohol, or when the accused has made an unreserved confession. However, these exceptions apply only in cases tried by the City or District Court. (Criminal Procedures Act, Sect. 94,96,100,107,262).

***

excerpt 2:

PENALTIES AND SENTENCING

2. Types of penalties.

*Death penalty. There is no death penalty.

B. Microsoft's provision of Windows Operating System Products to Covered OEMs shall be pursuant to uniform license agreements with uniform terms and conditions. Without limiting the foregoing, Microsoft shall charge each Covered OEM the applicable royalty for Windows Operating System Products as set forth on a schedule, to be established by Microsoft and published on a web site accessible to the Plaintiffs and all Covered OEMs, that provides for uniform royalties for Windows Operating System Products, except that:

1. the schedule may specify different royalties for different language versions;

2. the schedule may specify reasonable volume discounts based upon the actual volume of licenses of any Windows Operating System Product or any group of such products; and

3. the schedule may include market development allowances, programs, or other discounts in connection with Windows Operating System Products, provided that:
   1. such discounts are offered and available uniformly to all Covered OEMs, except that Microsoft may establish one uniform discount schedule for the ten largest Covered OEMs and a second uniform discount schedule for the eleventh through twentieth largest Covered OEMs, where the size of the OEM is measured by volume of licenses;

   2. such discounts are based on objective, verifiable criteria that shall be applied and enforced on a uniform basis for all Covered OEMs; and

   3. such discounts or their award shall not be based on or impose any criterion or requirement that is otherwise inconsistent with any portion of this Final Judgment.

It is obvious that Microsoft has been the fantastic driving force behind software innovation over the past two decades. Their uncanny ability to feel out new markets and met the needs of their customers with cost effective, friendly licensed, quality software has forced all other developers to increase the quality of their products.

DRM only helps the middlemen monopoly

I work. I get paid. I stop working; I stop getting paid. Some people have set up systems with "residual" income. They want to work, get paid, stop working, and keep getting paid. That's the Metallica plan, and the Hillary Rosen plan (she gets paid for help running the residual income racket for Metallica).

Without DRM, you make recordings/films, and give them away. Even if you charge for them and some people pay lots of people are going to see/hear it without you getting a dime from them. Then people (might, if your stuff doesn't SUCK) want to go see a live show or a big-screen showing of your work. You can charge admission to the closed event. You can show stuff in the event that you haven't given away. You stop working; you stop getting paid; you'd better have a savings plan!

Residual income is not economic production. It is pure monopoly rent. Either you believe in competition and the marketplace or you don't. Art is better off without the strong controls of a "sponsorship" system where you need a rich person to give your work the thumbs-up before you are "let in" to the closed distribution system.

The people pushing for DRM are the "golden handcuffs" vendors who offer the age-old devil's sell out contract. They would like to remove the option of not selling your soul. They almost have. This is not about making sure people pay for the art they see/hear. This is about media companies making sure there is no art without getting the biggest cut of the action.

They want to throttle our art to decrease supply and advertise to bolster demand so they can raise prices and fatten up the margin. It is all about setting up a monopoly and price controls and other stuff that slips past the Sherman Act.

They want to prevent artists from reaching people except through them. IT IS A RACKET!

If you are going to make quotes like this, at least get the numbers straight. This is mostly just the standard "whitey is keeping us down" FUD.

Quotes from ACLU:
* The race of the victim is often a decisive factor in capital sentencing decisions. Almost all death sentences in this country - 81 percent - involve white victims. 174 black people have been executed for killing a white person, but only 12 white people have been executed for killing a black person.

I won't dispute these numbers, I don't have the refences. However, I wonder, what the ratios look like. Basically, how many black killing white murder convictions where there in that period? And how many white killing black murder convictions? Then figure out the ratio of convictions to death penalty rulings. Just quoting that there were more DP ruling for one group than another group fails to show anything more than one group had more DP ruling than the other; this is not a good way to do a comparision. How many DP rulings per capital conviction for each group would be a better way to gauge it.

* There is a double standard for rich and poor. The quality of legal representation is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime. The quality of legal representation depends on whether or not you can hire a lawyer. Almost all people on death row could not afford to hire a qualified attorney.

I won't argue this, being able to hire a better lawyer is an advantage. For those of us without the money to hire a Dream Team of lawyers life sucks if we get caught.

* From 1988-1994, out of 52 defendants in capital cases in the federal courts, 39 (75%) were black, and 34 of those received death out of 47 total death recommendations.

I think you tracked across on the chart wrong. It was actually, 39 cases submitted, 34 authroized by the attorney general to seek the DP, 8 convictions, and 3 sentanced to death. For a grand total of 8% of the cases submitted for Black. And in comparison, 7 submitted, 7 authorized, 3 convictions and 2 sentanced to the DP for White. Grand total 28% of cases submitted.
Thought the convictions per DP number is really what we should look at. 37% and 67%. Though with the small sample sizes this data is not really that useful.
Refernce: USDOJ Doc Page 3.

* From 1995-2000, out of 682 capital cases, 324 (48%) went to blacks, and 71 (of 159) of those received death.

Same mistake as above, tracked to the wrong value in the table. Its actually, 324 cases submitted, 71 authorized to seek DP by the Attorney General, 13 Sentenced to DP, 4%.
Not mentioned by you but... 134 Cases subbmitted, 44 authorized to seek, 4 sentenced, 3%.
Refernce: USDOJ Doc Page 3.
Funny, I don't see your 15x number, or any support for that claim.
I realize this whole thing is only loosely related to the topic, but I hate racist crap like this. And, yes, hating white people is racist.

If you are going to make quotes like this, at least get the numbers straight. This is mostly just the standard "whitey is keeping us down" FUD.

Quotes from ACLU:
* The race of the victim is often a decisive factor in capital sentencing decisions. Almost all death sentences in this country - 81 percent - involve white victims. 174 black people have been executed for killing a white person, but only 12 white people have been executed for killing a black person.

I won't dispute these numbers, I don't have the refences. However, I wonder, what the ratios look like. Basically, how many black killing white murder convictions where there in that period? And how many white killing black murder convictions? Then figure out the ratio of convictions to death penalty rulings. Just quoting that there were more DP ruling for one group than another group fails to show anything more than one group had more DP ruling than the other; this is not a good way to do a comparision. How many DP rulings per capital conviction for each group would be a better way to gauge it.

* There is a double standard for rich and poor. The quality of legal representation is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime. The quality of legal representation depends on whether or not you can hire a lawyer. Almost all people on death row could not afford to hire a qualified attorney.

I won't argue this, being able to hire a better lawyer is an advantage. For those of us without the money to hire a Dream Team of lawyers life sucks if we get caught.

* From 1988-1994, out of 52 defendants in capital cases in the federal courts, 39 (75%) were black, and 34 of those received death out of 47 total death recommendations.

I think you tracked across on the chart wrong. It was actually, 39 cases submitted, 34 authroized by the attorney general to seek the DP, 8 convictions, and 3 sentanced to death. For a grand total of 8% of the cases submitted for Black. And in comparison, 7 submitted, 7 authorized, 3 convictions and 2 sentanced to the DP for White. Grand total 28% of cases submitted.
Thought the convictions per DP number is really what we should look at. 37% and 67%. Though with the small sample sizes this data is not really that useful.
Refernce: USDOJ Doc Page 3.

* From 1995-2000, out of 682 capital cases, 324 (48%) went to blacks, and 71 (of 159) of those received death.

Same mistake as above, tracked to the wrong value in the table. Its actually, 324 cases submitted, 71 authorized to seek DP by the Attorney General, 13 Sentenced to DP, 4%.
Not mentioned by you but... 134 Cases subbmitted, 44 authorized to seek, 4 sentenced, 3%.
Refernce: USDOJ Doc Page 3.
Funny, I don't see your 15x number, or any support for that claim.
I realize this whole thing is only loosely related to the topic, but I hate racist crap like this. And, yes, hating white people is racist.

While I would like to think this, the fact is, is that most people did not care because it was the Jews. Was this an effect of propaganda or just a reflection of institutionalized anti-semitism I do not know, probably a bit of both.

Oh yeah, here we go, hate whitey.... please cite specific examples where under identical circumstances a black defendent recieved the death penalty and a white defendent got a slap on the wrist.

Ok, let's say some other company, let's call it "Company Z" decides to create a competitor to the PDF format. It's completely open, the software to create PDF files is free. But wait, how are they going to spread their viewing application code to users? Oh no! They can't! In theory you would like to say "This is the best product out there so people will use it." So Company Z puts it on the web but no one downloads it.. even though it's the best product! Heaven forbid! Now let's say Microsoft decides to put their competing version, xdocs, on every PC. They can do this because they control the OS. Company Z doesn't. So in other words, Microsoft is using its momentum in the OS market in order to provide a competing product to users. It may be nice, but what about the even better products which don't have the luxury of bundling software with the OS?

Is that why Netscape crashed even more than Internet Explorer, in spite of it being a simpler, less integrated (and therefore less interacted with) product? Microsoft may have unfairly given advantage to its product, and there are competitors in the market which would have fared better otherwise, but Netscape sucked by its own efforts.

Better product? Hmm, I seem to remember Microsoft rushing IE out the door and creating an extremely buggy product.. In fact both were equally buggy.

And may have played unfairly? No, it's a fact that they did play unfairly. This is not a hypothetical situation according to a certain judge: (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm #va):

91. Although Netscape declined the special relationship with Microsoft, its executives continued, over the weeks following the June 21 meeting, to plead for the RNA API. Despite Netscape's persistence, Microsoft did not release the API to Netscape until late October, i.e., as Allard had warned, more than three months later. The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling season. 92. Microsoft similarly withheld a scripting tool that Netscape needed to make its browser compatible with certain dial-up ISPs. Microsoft had licensed the tool freely to ISPs that wanted it, and in fact had cooperated with Netscape in drafting a license agreement that, by mid- July 1996, needed only to be signed by an authorized Microsoft executive to go into effect. There the process halted, however. In mid-August, a Microsoft representative informed Netscape that senior executives at Microsoft had decided to link the grant of the license to the resolution of all open issues between the companies. Netscape never received a license to the scripting tool, and as a result, was unable to do business with certain ISPs for a time.

1. Did the defendant induce or attempt to induce the victim to give up property or property rights?
   
2. Did the defendant use or attempt to use the victim's reasonable fear of physical injury or economic harm in order to induce the victim's consent to give up property?
   
3. Did the defendant's conduct actually or potentially obstruct, delay, or affect interstate or foreign commerce in any (realistic) way or degree?
   
4. Was the defendant's actual or threatened use of force, violence or fear wrongful?
   

How on earth did she come to that conclusion?!

She's referring to Microsoft's monopoly of target platforms for developers. That is the reason Microsoft sought to undermine Java and Netscape was to prevent developers being able to target API's other than the Windows API. Both she and the government have chosen to adopt an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the findings of fact.

They were able to do this because though Judge Jackson, in the original findings of fact, described in great detail how Microsoft extended their monopoly from the operting system market to the browser market he failed to say explicitly that they had used one monopoly to obtain another.

Basically it's the sort of schoolboy sophistry that lawyers are duty bound to indulge in when presenting a case, and that politicians use to justify their lies. It's the sort of thing that honest and courageous judges shun, but that craven and corrupt judges will indulge in to avoid their decisions being overturned.

Consider this finding of Judge Jackson:

384. Although the suspicion lingers, the evidence is insufficient to find that Microsoft's ambition is a future in which most or all of the content available on the Web would be accessible only through its own browsing software. The evidence does, however, reveal an intent to ensure that if and when full-featured, server-based applications begin appearing in large numbers on the Web, the number of them relying solely on middleware APIs (such as those exposed by Navigator) will be too few to attenuate the applications barrier to entry.

Now consider Kollar-Kotelly's stipulation that any API's relating to DRM can be kept hidden. In other words developers will be hindered in the development of applications that can read files intended to be rendered by Windows Media Player or Microsoft Reader. Kollar-Kotelly has given them carte-blanche to further extend their monopoly into the playback of copy protected media. Thus not only does the settlement fail to tackle the originally abusive API monopoly, nor to remedy the extension of that monopoly to web browsers, but it specifically invites Microsoft to further extend their monopoly.

Damn that woman!

>He's no more evil than any other big business out there.

How many other businesses in the US have been convicted of illegally running a monopoly at similar levels as Microsoft?

Let's see... Well, recently, according to this 6. If that's common, then I'd love to see what isn't.

>You are the typical linux biggot who believes anything profitable is bad.

You are the typical anonymous coward that has to insult anyone who is more intelligent than yourself.

Bill Gates lies to judges, and you think he is not an evil man? He had more than enough opportunity to plead the fifth, but instead chose to repeatedly commit perjury even after being warned. He deserves to rot in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass penetentary for a week for that alone.

You know who else tends to lie constantly and through their teeth in court? A Mobster.

I won't even get into the fact that Bill Gates has been accused by the police (it's an obscure reference that is hard to find... but quite possible) of being an insane driver which led to that ever-so-popular jailhouse picture. Not to mention his alleged ownership of illicit vehicles.

Taken from the DOJ 's conclusions of law of the Microsoft anti-trust case:

"Apple increased its distribution and promotion of Internet Explorer not because of a conviction that the quality of Microsoft's product was superior to Navigator's, or that consumer demand for it was greater, but rather because of the in terrorem effect of the prospect of the loss of Mac Office. To be blunt, Microsoft threatened to refuse to sell a profitable product to Apple, a product in whose development Microsoft had invested substantial resources, and which was virtually ready for shipment. Not only would this ploy have wasted sunk costs and sacrificed substantial profit, it also would have damaged Microsoft's goodwill among Apple's customers, whom Microsoft had led to expect a new version of Mac Office. The predominant reason Microsoft was prepared to make this sacrifice, and the sole reason that it required Apple to make Internet Explorer its default browser and restricted Apple's freedom to feature and promote non-Microsoft browsing software, was to protect the applications barrier to entry. More specifically, the requirements and restrictions relating to browsing software were intended to raise Internet Explorer's usage share, to lower Navigator's share, and more broadly to demonstrate to important observers (including consumer, developers, industry participants, and investors) that Navigator's success had crested. Had Microsoft's only interest in developing the Mac OS version of Internet Explorer been to enable organizational customers using multiple PC operating-system products to standardize on one user interface for Web browsing, Microsoft would not have extracted from Apple the commitment to make Internet Explorer the default browser or imposed restrictions on its use and promotion of Navigator."

Microsoft threatened to hold back development of software for the Mac platform. Apple wasn't in a position to refuse the money.

• some history for you.
• the US govt imprisons more of its own citizens per capita than any other country in the world, and the number of children in us prisons is on the rise. Many of these prisons would rate as "horrific", especially for kids.
• There are many documented instances of the US gassing their own people. here's just one and didn't the russians just gas their own people too? and for the record those kurds supposedly gassed by Iraq were actually gassed by Iran with US and british supplied weapons.
• actually the US does execute miltary officers by the hundreds. in fact the US executed thousands of retreating iraqi soldiers in 1991. Not onlty that but the US is guilty of political assasination, car bombing, torture, and general mayhem associated with their ongoing war of terror. I mean Nixon and Kissinger and Rumsfeld actually extended the vietnam war (95% civillian casualties) by years just to get Nixon elected.
• and finally to say the US doesn't repress free speech is too much of a joke. even google is staffed by NSA spooks. self censorship is at an all time high - wake up and smell what your are shovelling. If the press in the US were really free you'd probably know a bit more about your own evil soaked government and their clients.

- Demand regime change in the USA now.

• some history for you.
• the US govt imprisons more of its own citizens per capita than any other country in the world, and the number of children in us prisons is on the rise. Many of these prisons would rate as "horrific", especially for kids.
• There are many documented instances of the US gassing their own people. here's just one and didn't the russians just gas their own people too? and for the record those kurds supposedly gassed by Iraq were actually gassed by Iran with US and british supplied weapons.
• actually the US does execute miltary officers by the hundreds. in fact the US executed thousands of retreating iraqi soldiers in 1991. Not onlty that but the US is guilty of political assasination, car bombing, torture, and general mayhem associated with their ongoing war of terror. I mean Nixon and Kissinger and Rumsfeld actually extended the vietnam war (95% civillian casualties) by years just to get Nixon elected.
• and finally to say the US doesn't repress free speech is too much of a joke. even google is staffed by NSA spooks. self censorship is at an all time high - wake up and smell what your are shovelling. If the press in the US were really free you'd probably know a bit more about your own evil soaked government and their clients.

- Demand regime change in the USA now.