Slashdot Mirror

Any software system with a large enough user base can rely on the accumulated experience of its users to add features, and also picking ideas from smaller systems now and then (at a very low incremental effort).

Corollary. The onus is on the smaller players to come up with new features to distinguish themselves from the masses -- but ultimately it's no-win for them because their *really useful* ideas will be subsumed into more popular systems anyway ... only a matter of time. This also reminds me of what Judge Jackson described in the section of his findings of fact against Microsoft: "Barrier to Entry"

• The House of Representatives
  
• Thomas at the Library of Congress
  
• The US Postal Service
  
• The Securities and Exchange Commission
  
• The Federal Trade Commission
  
• (FWIW: i.e. not much) The Internal Revenue Service This is one of the poorer examples, but at least you can download forms in PDF.
  
• The White House
  
• The US Dept of Justice Not as useful as the others...
  

is sufficiently cloudy on access to information about airports, nuclear reactors and power stations. I see "freedom of speech" in there, but I don't see "freedom of access to information" present. I don't see how "Speech = access to info". Perhaps you could enlighten me.

But we do have something called the Freedom of Information Act. This requires the government to make non-classified information public. There are only a few exceptions to this, including the internal operations of agencies, personal memos, law enforcement, and this little piece:

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

Now, IANAL, but it would seem like the government is breaking the law. As far as I know, there has been no Executive Order (re)classifying this information.

There is another question: can previously unclassified information be classified? Is this similar to trade secrets where, once its made public, its no longer subject to trade secret protections.

I read the settlement. It is great for Microsoft, and almost meaningless for everyone else.

The provisions don't begin until many people have been pushed into using Windows XP (eXtra Pain), after which they will be trapped in ways that are not part of the case. Here is a quote:

"Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court..."

Why not starting now?

Microsoft must disclose APIs, but may charge royalties. This prevents competition from Linux.

There is nothing which prevents Microsoft from using secret Microsoft Office file formats in an anti-competitive way.

The settlement provisions apparently do not apply if Microsoft claims that its anti-competitive software practices provide security.

The provisions provide Microsoft significant benefits.

Here's my letter to the DOJ:


I've owned a computer dealership since before IBM sold personal computers. I'm also a programmer.

Microsoft is extemely abusive and anti-competitive. -- Microsoft is far, far more anti-competitive and abusive than the US DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust case discusses. If the present case in resolved in an insufficient fashion, there will be a need for another case immediately.

Secret file formats are anti-competitive. -- A good partial resolution of the case would be to prohibit Microsoft from using secret file formats. Then there could be competition again.

At present there cannot be competition because the software from the dominant company, Microsoft, produces file formats that cannot be reproduced because they are secret. So, another company cannot make software that reliably inter-operates.

At present, if a big customer upgrades to a new version of Microsoft Office, and sends out files in a format incompatible with previous versions, all people who receive the files are forced to upgrade their Microsoft software. Companies understandably don't want to go to a good customer and ask that a document be sent again in a former file format.

Microsoft produces software that is deliberately faulty. -- Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME all have articifial limitations which cause them to crash even though there are plenty of hardware resources. These are called "User Resources" and "GDI Resources". The memory for these resources is artificially limited to 128,000 bytes in some cases and 2 megabytes in other cases. When these resources are exhausted, the operating systems stop functioning.

Microsoft deliberately allows piracy. -- Major competitors of Microsoft like Corel Word Perfect and IBM Lotus WordPro have difficulty competing because Microsoft allows enough piracy of Microsoft products that competitors cannot sell theirs.

I called the Microsoft legal department and complained about this. The result was that I was a witness in a case against one of the pirates. More recently I tried to complain about this again, but it is now impossible to contact Microsoft's legal department.

In my area Microsoft Office 2000 is available for $50.00 at dealers who sell low-cost computers. I have verified with Microsoft that these are pirated copies. Over a period of many years, Microsoft has not taken sufficient action against the pirates to allow a chance for honest competitors.

Microsoft is ending support. -- Next month, December 2001, Microsoft will stop providing support for Windows 98, apparently in an attempt to force users to upgrade. Another good partial resolution of the DOJ-Microsoft case would be to extend the support time for at least another 10 years. Many people have computers that operate fine for the purpose for which they are used. For example, an accounting department in a small company may use Windows 95, or even the DOS operating system. These people should not be forced to upgrade.

These are only a few of the extremely anti-competitive and abusive methods Microsoft uses, in my opinion.

Regards,

Michael Jennings


An explanation of how the U.S. got involved in violence: What should be the Response to Violence?

Link to the most recent version of the settlement. (I think)

Is it really any surprise that nothing new was stated in the article?

Here's a link to the DOJ's press release on the settlement. Everyone should try to read it, as well as the actual settlement (if you can find it... links, anyone???)

Personally, I think the settlement is satisfactory. It addresses the root of the problem and stays (mostly) out of other issues. Microsoft's sin is not in it's products... it's in it's sales and marketing practices. Unless someone can prove that Windows has a secret "Disable third-party software" function, I just don't see the problem.

"The Justice Department said less than one-tenth of 1 percent of federal inmates are subject to the provision that allows such monitoring.

So with our current prison system, that's about what, 3 million prisoners?

I'd say that's a lot.

If you read the security bulletin, it's not referring to windows at all. It's a problem with Internet Explorer version 5.5 or later.

If you have been following the US v Microsoft case, you will notice that this question is at the core of the case. Microsoft has been saying all along that IE IS an integral part of Windows, not simply another application.

So, yes this is a problem with Windows, especially if you agree with Microsoft about the government's case.

The question is, how good is the judge at writing said code?

So we could pick apart the consent decree, but there's no guarantee that's what she'll use and in fact it's probably NOT what she'll use.

Another nice article on the public comment period.

A more official reference to the tunney act itself.

Paragraph d says: At the close of the period during which such comments may be received, the United States shall file with the district court and cause to be published in the Federal Register a response to such comments.

You want to fight with MS > Go ahead and create your own , superior file sharing protocols and beat them that way

MS has been ruled a monopolist, and guilty of abusing that monopoly power, by two federal courts. If not for that fact, your argument would be completely correct. But because MS is a monopoly, the rules are different for them, which IMHO is as it should be.

That's the whole point of the Sherman Act.

In addition to contacting your state's Attorney General, I recommend sharing your thoughts directly with the DoJ's Antitrust Division:

From http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/emails.htm:

If your comments relate specifically to the Antitrust Division's suit against Microsoft Corporation, please direct your correspondence to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

Impress them with your eloquence. That's how democracy works.

In addition to contacting your state's Attorney General, I recommend sharing your thoughts directly with the DoJ's Antitrust Division:

From http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/emails.htm:

If your comments relate specifically to the Antitrust Division's suit against Microsoft Corporation, please direct your correspondence to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

Impress them with your eloquence. That's how democracy works.

While I'm not naive enough to believe that political motivations are pure, I don't quite see the lure of money in this one. In this proposed settlement (from the DOJ website) there is no mention of monetary fines. Now, if money were the only reason Mass. was holding out, wouldn't the other 17 states go "Oh, shit, we can make money off this? Why the hell are we signing this agreement?"

That being the case, I think it's more likely that Mass. is holding out for better reasons. They see the loopholes in the current agreement and decided it would not be an effective barrier to Microsoft continuing its illegal practices.

Proud to be an American from Massachusetts,

Also, the BBC is running this story.

Aside from all that, it is good to see that someone has realised what an atrocity the previous judgement would have been. Finding a balance will be tricky, agreed; but what they were running with before just wasn't it.

(not!) Apparently operating and promoting a criminal monopoly in the United States does not incur much penalty.

The terms of this antitrust agreement (at C|Net) stike me as more of a blowjob than a slap on the wrist. The terms of this agreement do nothing to address the core issues of punitive damages in this "penalty" phase of the trial. Hasn't Microsoft been found to be an illegal monopolist? And even so there is no penalty forthcoming, only what can be described as minor conduct tweaking? Wow.

This deal is also weaker than what was on the table before MS was found guilty. Armed with a 7-0 judge appeals ruling that MS is an illegal monopolist, the DoJ now settles for something even less? [sarcasm] If I didn't have such a high confidence in the current administration, I'd have thought they'd been paid off or something; good thing we know that that can't be the case. [/sarcasm]

We can all be sure that more of the same will now continue. After all, were not similar minor conduct remedies ordered by courts in 1994, etc, only to be ignored by Microsoft? Now these conduct remedies will be... ignored again! And with that scary extension... yet again! Justice prevails in America. So do the undead apparently.

The idea, as is sometimes heard now, that the DoJ should go easy on Microsoft because of the current financial uncertainty does not hold water either. So we should suspend penalties to laws, just so that the economic boat doesn't get rocked? Even if the previous penalty of breaking the company into 2 was applied, this would not substantially change the immediate economic situation. Everyone would still use Windows, it would still come with your Dell, it would still be the de facto stadard for years; it's just that slowly other system choices would gradually appear. How would this be an economic calamity? Even this breakup scenario is now unlikely, after the DoJ unilaterally pulled the IE bundling claim off the table (for what reason, no-one really knows).

I am apalled at what amounts to a near toal capitulation by the Bush Administration's new DoJ attorneys. Mostly, it is the lack of justice that bothers me. I'm glad I'm not a US citizen otherwise I'd also be angry about the millions of taxpayers dollars put into this case over many years, and not even the most minor financial penalty to cover the costs of the case recuperated. If they want any kind of justice, Americans should write their state representatives and attorneys general to make known they do not support the Sates' signing on to this toothless deal. Barring that, it's up to the European Union to reign in the beast now.

Anti-trust is the most ridiculous notion, it punishes success.

Perhaps it is time for you to reconsider either your position or your sig.

Yeah,
Let's build an economy on a backbone of criminal and otherwise unethical behavior!

Wait a minnit! This is the Bush administration... That's what almost half of you selfish bastards voted for!

Send mail to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov and complain

Just Because Bill is evil doesn't mean his browser sucks.

YES. It does.
Internet Exploiter is IMMORAL software, the tool of a criminal monopoly's anticompetitive conspiracy:

In case you don't know the history, IE was created FOR NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DESTROY NETSCRAPE, and put an end to the possibility of cross-platform portability between the WinBloze environment and any other. It did not matter that it sucked, all that mattered was that it enjoyed the full faith and backing of the Empire. The tactics used to push IE down the throats of Internet surfers everywhere (well, at least on the M$ platform) eventually resulted in Criminal convictions for Micro$uck.

Jim Barksdale's testimony before the US District court
Jim Gosling's testimony before the US District court
The court's eventual findings of fact which vindicated both of these men

If IE treats a given piece of html differently from NetScrape, IE's functionality for that particular feature is broken. Of course, I wouldn't wait around for the Empire to fix it, just ignore it.

If a webpage somewhere does not work on NetScrape, that webpage is broken, and needs to be fixed. Of course, if it works in IE that's another good indication that it's BROKEN.

This is not a technical issue, it is a moral issue.

No one has ever given the slightest rip for the W3C html(whichever) standard, and no one is about to start now.

It's time, however, to stop the takeover of the WWW by the Evil Empire. DO NOT CODE FOR THE EVIL INTERNET EXPLOITER "BROWSER". WRITE WWW CODE FOR THE WEB'S LEGITIMATE BROWSER, NETSCRAPE.

And hope to God that someday we get something _better_!

Just Because Bill is evil doesn't mean his browser sucks.

YES. It does.
Internet Exploiter is IMMORAL software, the tool of a criminal monopoly's anticompetitive conspiracy:

In case you don't know the history, IE was created FOR NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DESTROY NETSCRAPE, and put an end to the possibility of cross-platform portability between the WinBloze environment and any other. It did not matter that it sucked, all that mattered was that it enjoyed the full faith and backing of the Empire. The tactics used to push IE down the throats of Internet surfers everywhere (well, at least on the M$ platform) eventually resulted in Criminal convictions for Micro$uck.

Jim Barksdale's testimony before the US District court
Jim Gosling's testimony before the US District court
The court's eventual findings of fact which vindicated both of these men

If IE treats a given piece of html differently from NetScrape, IE's functionality for that particular feature is broken. Of course, I wouldn't wait around for the Empire to fix it, just ignore it.

If a webpage somewhere does not work on NetScrape, that webpage is broken, and needs to be fixed. Of course, if it works in IE that's another good indication that it's BROKEN.

This is not a technical issue, it is a moral issue.

No one has ever given the slightest rip for the W3C html(whichever) standard, and no one is about to start now.

It's time, however, to stop the takeover of the WWW by the Evil Empire. DO NOT CODE FOR THE EVIL INTERNET EXPLOITER "BROWSER". WRITE WWW CODE FOR THE WEB'S LEGITIMATE BROWSER, NETSCRAPE.

And hope to God that someday we get something _better_!

Just Because Bill is evil doesn't mean his browser sucks.

YES. It does.
Internet Exploiter is IMMORAL software, the tool of a criminal monopoly's anticompetitive conspiracy:

In case you don't know the history, IE was created FOR NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DESTROY NETSCRAPE, and put an end to the possibility of cross-platform portability between the WinBloze environment and any other. It did not matter that it sucked, all that mattered was that it enjoyed the full faith and backing of the Empire. The tactics used to push IE down the throats of Internet surfers everywhere (well, at least on the M$ platform) eventually resulted in Criminal convictions for Micro$uck.

Jim Barksdale's testimony before the US District court
Jim Gosling's testimony before the US District court
The court's eventual findings of fact which vindicated both of these men

If IE treats a given piece of html differently from NetScrape, IE's functionality for that particular feature is broken. Of course, I wouldn't wait around for the Empire to fix it, just ignore it.

If a webpage somewhere does not work on NetScrape, that webpage is broken, and needs to be fixed. Of course, if it works in IE that's another good indication that it's BROKEN.

This is not a technical issue, it is a moral issue.

No one has ever given the slightest rip for the W3C html(whichever) standard, and no one is about to start now.

It's time, however, to stop the takeover of the WWW by the Evil Empire. DO NOT CODE FOR THE EVIL INTERNET EXPLOITER "BROWSER". WRITE WWW CODE FOR THE WEB'S LEGITIMATE BROWSER, NETSCRAPE.

And hope to God that someday we get something _better_!

According to the update at CNet, Microsoft specifically stated that they are watching for Opera versions because they aren't fully compliant with XHTML 1.0, and want the user to use only compliant XHTML browsers to view MSN. (Microsoft's claims)

Yeah it might. Actually any public/government organization must provide access to WWW content according to the ADA. Don't know if this applies here with MS.

And on a side note, Flash-only sites like the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles equally SUCK.

Maybe they will start an investigation into Quest.net?

The affidavit says that Scarfo used a Windows OS.

Coupled with the DOJ ruling, it just goes to prove that M$ Windows is an operating system written for criminals by criminals.

I also love some of thier business practices, and believe business students will be studing these for years to come in universities all over the USA.

Which ones are you referring to?

• Embrace and Extend
• "Lobby" to get the politicians who support you elected
• Leverage one market with your monopoly in another
• Censorship
• If you can't beat them buy them

damn, that's a lot of bad trips mannn...

It's always so easy to identify people who have never taken LSD--they're the ones who speak of "bad trips" and "flashbacks" and all that COINTELPRO fiction. Maybe you can leave the world of the naïve and join the world of John F. Kennedy, Cary Grant, Carl Sagan, Huston Smith, and other examples of highly effective people who have tripped on LSD.

it could have supplied 15 million doses of the drug, or about a third of the world's supply

You must have gotten these statistics from the Dealers of Ecstacy Agency, who must be the ones selling all the drugs, since they seem to know so much about the quantities, prices, etc. Have you noticed that their shingle reads "Drug Enforcement Administration" rather than "Drug Law Enforcement Administration"? It appears they are forcing everyone to take drugs, since per capita consumption of illegal drugs has increased even though over 1,000,000 people are currently jailed on drug charges and over $17,000,000,000 has been stolen from drug users/sellers to finance the police state.

If all the bad things they said about illegal drugs were true, the ground would be piled about three feet deep with all the bodies of people who jump from buildings in anticipation of flying, and 50% of men would have to wear B- or C-cup bras to hold their enlarged breasts. Alas, the voices of science and reason have been drowned by the baseless rhetoric of politicians. Thank you, Mister Gunnery Sergeant, for serving as such a fine example of the effectiveness of semantic programming.

I was king code-monkey on the original implemenation of INSPASS. A system designed to expedite one's wait as they enter the U.S. from a "friendly" country. It was designed to reduce the lines so that INS inspectors had more time to focus on bad guys and people from "unfriendly" countries.

It was essentially a "good guy" system. Meaning, I'd swipe my card, which claimed I was "Joe Smoe". I then put my hand in the box and had it's geometry scanned. If it passed, it would "confirm" my identity and send me along to the Customs line. If it threw a false result, I was compelled to stand in the long line with everyone else.

Using biometrics to determine "bad guys" is a horse of a much different color ... and a far girthier size. Imagine, I walk into an airport. I scans my face, or fingerprint. From there the image is sliced and diced into various quadrants. Even with a beowolf, there are thousands of minutea points I share with the rest of the worlds population.

So up comes a list of "close matches". Then human intervention comes along and finishes the job. This is a poor-man's quick and dirty explanation of our current "bad-guy" systems work to match figerprints. Like I said, a far girthier and much colored horse.

If biometrics were to be implemented as an airport, I would see it as again, a "good guy" system to expedite the long lines currently at the airport ... where it's easy for a bad guy to take advantage of the overworked employees with managers demaning they keep the line moving.

I would think it better to be a system provided by the airlines. Heck, credit cards are already putting my face and other info on smartcards, why not a frequent flyer plan along with it ... that can also be used to confirm my baggage on the flip side.

We'll see.

Yes, the U.S. may be becoming a police state. Not only does the U.S. have at least three agencies that police the entire world, the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA, but the U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of any country ever, in the history of the world.

Here are the official December 31, 2000 prison statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice. Sorry about the formatting. The lameness filter is lame. It won't let me post enough leading dots.

The total population of the United States, projected to September 24, 2001 at 6:34:55 PM PDT is 285,218,008. Therefore, 2.3 percent of the entire U.S. population is in prison or involved with the criminal justice system. But remember, many of those are babies or children. About 3.1 percent of all adult U.S. citizens are in prison, jail, or on probation or parole.

An April 20, 2000 ABC News article, U.S. Prison Population Rising says that the percentage of growth of the U.S. prison population is rising.

There is other evidence of social breakdown: An August 19, 1998 BBC News article, The United States of murder, says that the city with the highest murder rate, Washington, D.C., has a murder rate 170 times higher than the city with the lowest murder rate, Brussels, Belgium. The nine U.S. cities in this study of murder rates all were in the list of the 12 cities with highest murder rate.

There is evidence that the secret agencies of the U.S. government and the weapons manufactureres have too much control: What should be the Response to Violence? .

from 18 U.S.C. 1030. on the DOJ website.

(2) the term "protected computer" means a computer

(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communications;

Part (A) looks ok from a terrorist definition point of view. But part (B) means that cracking Amazon is terrorism. Or could be. I haven't found anything in this that limits prosecutorial discretion. Yet.

And for the record, not all of the sections defined as computer crimes are defined as terrorist acts. Just 1030(a)(1), (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), or (a)(7)

This is the system most likely to be expanded into a national identity check system. At the very least, we'll probably see that level of physical identification at all INS-controlled entry points.

The poster never said that the events at the World Trade Center weren't important, or that 6000 deaths weren't important. They are, but he's right that people need some perspective. Every year in the US approx 2.4 million people die. That's approx 6500 a day. Since 9/11, about 80,000 people have died across the US. Every year, 20,000 people die of AIDS in the US. In New York, approx 2500 people have died since the attack in completely unrelated ways. Since you mention murder, almost 20,000 people have been murdered in the US since 9/11.

A lot of people died, and it is sad. A lot of property was destroyed, and that's sad too. A well known landmark of NYC was levelled and that's sad. But more than sad, most of these things are scary to people who didn't see it coming. But the world is fundamentally the same as it was 2 weeks ago before everything happened. Air travel is far less convenient, Manhattan is drastically changed, but the US has barely changed at all.

I think the map CNN made to show the damage to NYC is neat. It does a good job of showing the scale of the damage. The fact I think the map is neat doesn't mean I don't think the damage is horrible, but I am able to differentiate between the map and the damage itself. I also think SmartMoney's map of the market is neat (http://www.smartmoney.com/marketmap/index.cfm?sho wWeekStats=true). It shows graphically what the market has been doing in the last week. This doesn't mean I think it's neat that the market lost 15% in 1 week, or that the weapons contractors are up; Lockheed Martin is up 10%, General Dynamics is up 10% and Northrop Grumman is up 20%.

Don't confuse the messenger with the message.

Sources: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/, http://www.citypopulation.de/ http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/keytabs.htm

Gosh, I hope the Justice Dept. didn't use FrontPage to generate the web page for Penfield Jackson's Findings of Fact.

From the Slashdot story, "... Microsoft will never fix the problem without making sure people have to pay a monthly subscription for their OS."

I think this is exactly the problem. That's why Windows 2000 was reportedly shipped with 63,000 action items still unfinished. Microsoft knows that, once they deliver one good operating system, most people wiil never buy another. They want to make sure that they never finish the job.

Forcing users to pay for subscriptions would allow Microsoft to make money every year even if it did no more work on the OS. That seems to be the goal: money for nothing.

Microsoft is a very adversarial company, in my opinion. They are not good citizens.

A good partial resolution of the US DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust case would be to prohibit secret file formats. Then there could be competition again. At present, if a big customer upgrades to a new version of Microsoft Office, and sends out files incompatible file with previous versions, all people who receive the files are forced to upgrade. Companies don't want to go to a good customer and ask them to re-send a docuemnt in a former format.


What Should be the Response to Violence?

Let's not go overboard here. This past Sunday I watched ABC's "This Week", featuring an interview with the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

If you listen to what Mr. Ashcroft is specifically asking for, it is simply for the ability to let law enforcement authorities have the ability to tap phone conversations by individual rather than by an idividual phone number.

The main problem is that people have many phone numbers these days, plus when a suspect moves from county to county within the U.S., new wiretap warrants must be processed. A criminal could simply move every day or so and escape law enforcement official indefinitely.

For a transcript of John Ashcroft's news conferences, and to see specifically what he is after regarding new wiretap legislation, see the Department of Justice website.

Thanks.

Privacy Act Statement of 1974 it is the law. Why does everyone ignore it?

> It is however, absurd to argue that more guns would act as a
> deterrent to crime. Violence only begets more violence.

Absurdity implies that there is hard evidence that my case is incorrect, and that hard evidence is in question. You need to consider the proofs of argument before assuming that either side is absurd. In my previous example, the case of Switzerland refutes your point, and without a strong argument for a less-apparent reason for their low crime rate, you cannot dismiss the idea that more guns can (at least in some cases) lead to lower crime rates. It's easy to say that violence only begets more violence, but that's an oversimplification of how violence works, and there's much evidence that certain levels of violence (and certain situations for violence) wherein violence begets peace. The best example I can present on short notice is our relations with Japan before and after WWII. Not a perfect example by any means, but certainly strong enough to rule out simple absurdity of the argument.

> IMHO, there is no question that of the Western or first world
> nations, the US has (per capita) the highest incidence of violent crime.

While you're quite rational in arguing, unfortunately your humble opinion (and mine, for that matter) don't count for much. I'd ask you to present numbers that would support your point as well.

> Furthermore, I have seen some UN-based statistics which indicate that the US has the highest percentage of their population incarcerated compared to all other nations.(Can't find a link though). I can only assume these people are not in jail for jaywalking...

Good assumption, but according the the Department of Justice, (see here for statistics), only half (51%) of the prison population was in for violent crimes. So, although the total number of inmates may be higher, I'd like to see the UN's breakdown of violent criminals in other countries' prisons before making judgements (pardon the pun).

Virg

My heart is lifted by the care and the concern shown by the /. community. But as we are nerds in seek of news, I would like to see us come up with some possible solutions. Here's mine:

Back in 1995, I was the lead programmer for INSPass, the INS Passenger Accelerated Service System. Essentially, an individual trades the convenience of getting through customs for giving up their hand geometry on a card that is verified at a kiosk.

Now I read that there are going to be long lines at the airport. A wonderful place for a repeat of the terrorist disasters in Rome and Athens back in the mid-80's. And when it gets really, really busy, an excellent place for a bad guy to get waived through the lined on a frustrating day or by an airline employee who doesn't know what a fake driver's license looks like.

What I would like to see is some sort of voluntary program, offered by either the FAA or the airlines themselves where smart cards are issued. On them, is my face. On the chip, my fingerprint and othe biographic information. I sign up some other time than a day I'm travelling. I agree to have my information checked against known terrorists lists (only)

When I go the airport, I go to a kiosk where I hold the card up to my face to an attendant, who watches me I insert the card and verify my fingerprint, when I'm issued a ticket ... it has my face on it ... my baggage tags, again, with my face on it.

No, this is not foolproof. And some will still want to go through the old-fashioned line. And that's fine. But if enough people paticipate, it will take the work load off of those having to do identification the old fashioned way ... and with checks against known terrorist lists (only) ... may be enough to stop a wide-scale terrorist attack like the one we saw.

I hate giving up personal freedoms. But here is one case I'm willing to make an exception.

Generally, I find that people who complain about a particular Microsoft abuse don't know all the facts. If they did know all the facts, they would realize that the situation is worse than it first appeared.

However, coverage of Microsoft is beginning to be more complete. See Brian Livingston's column, Microsoft Passport Cracked for a few of the shortcomings of Microsoft's Passport authentication scheme, which, surprise, benefits mostly Microsoft, and puts the user at very serious risk.

Knowledgeable people realize that Microsoft is abusive. But I don't think there is anyone who knows the full extent of the abuse. The first step in deciding judicial remedies should be to write down all the abuses in one place. The result would be a large book. Just the Court's Findings of Fact in the Microsoft anti-trust case lists 207 pages of descriptions of abuses. There are some intense abuses listed, but what surprised me was that they were not the abuses I knew.

In my opinion, one of the most important judicial remedies is that Microsoft should be required to publish FULL descriptions of its file formats. Then other office software would be able to compete, for example. A full description would include descriptions of all the ways Microsoft's software does not follow the intended design, that is, descriptions of the bugs.

Just what everyone wants, I'm sure: Demand remains high, supply is cut dramatically, prices soar, youths mug people or hold up liquor stores to raise the cash, all the jackals move in to the black-market cash-opportunity they see gathering, and pretty soon gangs are slaughtering each other on the streets over non-Compliant hard drives. Customs officials sieze 400 gigs of Class A disk space (est. street value: $500,000).

The Government then runs Public Service announcements: "PIRACY KILLS" "MP3: JUST SAY NO" "WINNERS DON'T USE NONCOMPLIANT HARDWARE DEVICES" "FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS COPY MOVIES". They also offer tax rebates and other cash benefits to television shows and movies who include significantly pro-Digital Rights Management plotlines in their work.

In the summer movie, "Gone at 60kb/s", Nick Cage has to pirate an unprecedented number of other summer movies in one night in order to save his brother's life; in the more thoughtful "TCP/IP Traffic", Michael Douglas finds himself sucked into the seedy world of P2P after his teenage daughter is involved in a DVD-related incident, the story expertly interwoven with that of Open Source programmers working across the border, trying to stay true to their goals despite their lack of Compliance, trying to maintain their idealism in the face of a lead programmer who secretly is working for a reverse-engineering cartel.

New search-and-seizure laws are drafted to fight the War On Piracy, in order to Clean Up Our Streets And Save Our Children From Evil. All laptop computers are spot-checked at airports and potential employees are asked to undergo a hard-drive scan to ensure they are not "using".

Caffiene mints, copyleft t-shirts, and any item bearing a penguin logo are banned from COMDEX and any other gathering of software developers under Cracking House laws. These things are sure signs of illegal activity.

Far-fetched? Facetious? A little of both. But the general principles have been shown to hold true in the past, repeatedly.

Whee!

Uh, no. Take a look here and you'll see that the Attorney General is the head of the DOJ. The President appoints the AG, but the AG does not report directly to the President.

You are crediting the President with much more power than he actually has. Despite whatever shortcomings our Government has, you have to give credit to the our nation's founders who split power between the 3 branches of government. The President does not have the power that many people think he does.

Now, I'm not saying here that Bush had nothing to do with the DOJ's annoucement! Maybe he did have a key role in it - but he just doesn't have the power to order it done. Ashcroft is the one who can do that, not Bush. If Bush did order anything, it would only be a personal order (an unofficial order from Bush to Ashcroft), not an official order from the President to the DOJ.

In any case, this is all really off-topic; the point is that based on all the news reports (linked to from /. at least) there is absolutely no indication that Bush "ordered" the DOJ to do anything. And rightly so...

Uh, no. Take a look here and you'll see that the Attorney General is the head of the DOJ. The President appoints the AG, but the AG does not report directly to the President.

You are crediting the President with much more power than he actually has. Despite whatever shortcomings our Government has, you have to give credit to the our nation's founders who split power between the 3 branches of government. The President does not have the power that many people think he does.

Now, I'm not saying here that Bush had nothing to do with the DOJ's annoucement! Maybe he did have a key role in it - but he just doesn't have the power to order it done. Ashcroft is the one who can do that, not Bush. If Bush did order anything, it would only be a personal order (an unofficial order from Bush to Ashcroft), not an official order from the President to the DOJ.

In any case, this is all really off-topic; the point is that based on all the news reports (linked to from /. at least) there is absolutely no indication that Bush "ordered" the DOJ to do anything. And rightly so...

I'm not going to walk you through the indictment. If you don't want to read it that's fine, but please refrain from replying until you obtain at least the slightest bit of information about the case, such as what he's charged with. Whether any business anywhere committed any offence under any law isn't even an issue here.

Well, since Elcomsoft is listed as a defendent, I'd say it is. This is pretty standard - if you smuggle in drugs they don't drop the charges just because you're working for a drug lord. "I was just following orders" went out in the 40s.

no he wasn't.

A travel visa is not a dipolomatic immunity pass.

IANAL
Someone may have mentioned this before, but after reading the charges in the indictment, and referencing the applicable law (Title 17, Section(b)(1)(A)), it appears that inumerable people are guilty of this crime.

"No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner..."

To me there are a coupe details that leap out at me here. First the use of the words component and part. Software design is filled with reused parts and components. Does this mean the author of Tree.h commited a crime when his component object was used in the decryption software?

Secondly, the phrase "effectively protects a right of a copyright owner" is unclear. If a person like Dmitri breaks an encryption scheme then that encryption scheme did not effectively protect the rights of the copy right owner.

Finally, Fair Use (Title 17 Section 107) allows for the copy of copyrighted works for specific purposes. Since the Exclusive Rights (Title 17, Section 106) are "subject to Subject to section(s) 107", I don't see how his software violates any right. Under Fair Use Copyright owners do not have the right to prevent their work from being copied.

Am I making some colossal error in my interpretation of these laws?

Indictment: PDF
Copy Right Law: Cornel / US Code

The indictment itself is available as PDF from the US Department of "Justice".

Yes, here's the indictment.