Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: DCS 1000, Dmitry, Lizardry
Please let the shock penetrate the numbness. sethbc writes: "Well, it looks like the House has passed the DOJ Appropriations bill, giving the DOJ authority to use Carnivore for surveillance. The Tech Law Journal outlines the provisions for using Carnivore. I'm just glad I still have public key encryption."
Doesn't "DCS 1000" have sort of a nice homey ring to it? Maybe it reminds you of your Brother. Remember, encrypt your public key encryption software, and keep a copy with the other munitions.
That bandwidth rate is a little ... unusual. David's McOwen's case has raised quote a stir. If you missed word of this the first time, McOwen is being sued, and threatened with jail time, for installing the distributed.net client.
polymorf points to this article at Van's Hardware Journal, which features links to an online petition at petitiononline containing the comments of over 1800 people, and to relevant sites at tacube and freemcowen.
Cleverly disguise your hidden attraction to the DMCA. fenix down writes: "Lawrence Lessig has written an excellent op-ed piece in the NY Times (yeah, yeah, gotta register) on Dmitri Sklyarov and the DMCA. It nicely summarizes the problems with the DMCA as well as the Sklyarov and Felten cases. The dead-tree version gives me hope that this will be read. Big, eye-catching cartoon, center page, right under an article by Ehud Barak."
And since (despite? because of) all the attention he's gotten, Dmitry's wife's husband is still in jail, zlern writes: "Pictures from the protest to Free Dmitry in San Francisco today are available at sf.freesklyarov.org. Looks like about 150 people. Have you sent letters to your congresscritters yet?"
Stubborn contributor Chris DiBona contributes a link to an interesting DMCA resource, his DMCA Declaration, noting that it already has nearly 10,000 signatures, and that if people haven't signed up yet, they should as it becomes more useful the more people sign on.
Burning, Green -- fyuze or reptile? In response to the recent discussion of the Reptile content syndication system, ikarus-fallen writes:
"I was particularly intrigued by the post on the Reptile project today, because I run and develop a similar project, fyuze. The idea behind fyuze is similar to the idea behind Reptile: automate the process of retrieving, organizing and sifting through data. This eliminates the need to hop from site to site to collect information, and provides a certain level of convenience. Add in features that make it possible to have the system automatically scan for content that matches a particular criteria, along with the ability to search arbitrarily, and you've got a great way to collect all the news you want, and quickly find all the latest reviews for, say, 'Planet of the Apes.'fyuze differs from Reptile significantly in that it is a web-based system, not a client P2P application, meaning there is no software to install, simply log on, create an account, and then re-logon from anywhere else. This means that (in the future) it will be possible to use fyuze via a cell phone, or PDA, or any other web enabled device, like the flat-screen mounted to your fridge.
To simply list a couple of features, fyuze allows users to add content/feeds to the system, it supports RDF/RSS as well as plain old HTML, it has a skinnable interface via CSS, it allows for real-time content collection and related intelligent caching mechanisms, and has an advanced (content can span multiple rows and columns) layout system.
The real-time collection mechanism allows for fyuze to retrieve user specific information from a site. This means that a weblog could provide a user with not only the latest posts, but also information on recent replies to that user's comments, status of pending posts, karma, etc.
fyuze is only about a month old, so you may find it's selection of content a little small, but many popular sites are available. Besides, users can add content, so if you run a site, add it!
For more info, it might be helpful to read the following k5 article: Quest for the Ultimate Homepage"
Username: slashdot_effect
Password: slashdot
The missing postscript is:
Are the Editorial staff being deliberately disingenuous here? This is nothing like the case of Dmitry, but a casual reader would be forgiven for assuming it was.
username: slashdot2000i
password: slashdot2000
I remember when America was the home of the free, and Russia had the opressive laws.
Why would you possibly moderate this up? Somebody posted a name/pass in the first couple of comments, if you don't want to login you should use that. Rewarding people for copying and pasting is not what the karma system is about.
Also, did you stop to think that maybe if the NYTimes gets enough hits on this article that they might want to do more stories about topics like this?
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Way I figure it, that money could be better used in the social security fund, but since Shrub doesn't want it there, I'm going to use it another way to protect my future.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
In case you think I'm a karma whore, I'm not. I'd just put a link to the web site where I have this posted, but there's no way it will survive the /. effect, and I like my cable modem link as it is.
/. ers think.
I've given this idea to a number of people before now, with limited response. Time to bring out the big guns and see what you
The MPAA, RIAA, and closed source software houses have their customers over a barrel. For many of us, going to the movies, buying or renting a DVD, getting a CD from your favorite band, or buying a computer game is a way of getting a source of entertaiment. Unfortunately, purchasing these products gives companies the ammunition they use to pass laws such as the DMCA. These companies can then use these laws to beat us (the consumers) over the head. Why do we let them continue? What can we, as consumers, do to keep our money from being used against us?
The SolutionA possible solution is something you can do every day, starting right now. Every DVD you buy, every game you purchase, every visit to a movie theater, every CD you buy, add $5 to the cost. In many cases, this amounts to between 10% (a $50 game) to 50% ($9.99 DVD) of the cost of the item you purchases. Given the way prices work, the original price from the manufacturer is about 50% of the price you pay, so a $50 game is sold initially for about $25. Once you pay licenses, royalties, production, etc. there probably is not much left over that goes to lobbyists or legal. Thus, you are giving a larger amount of money to defeat these laws than you are "giving" to get them enacted.
What do you do with that $5? Donate it to the organization of your choice. Currently, the Electronic Frontier Foundataionis in the forefront of these kinds of issues, but you can choose whomever you like.
What good will your $5 do? Simply put, the EFF needs money. Money to pay for lawyers, money to educate people why these laws are wrong, money to defend those accused of crimes that violate the first amendment of the US Constitution. Since it is effectively increasing the cost of DVDs, CDs, etc., it will also make you think twice about your entertainment choices and maybe even save you money over the long run.
Okay, I have $5. Now what? Save it up. Make a notation somewhere. At the end of the month, end of the quarter, whenever, add up the notations and send the appropriate amount of money to the organization of your choice. In many cases, the money you send is tax-deductible (consult your accontant blah blah)
e-mail me for more informationThe same is true in the House, though to a lesser extent. Missouri and Michigan don't have the biggest populations (California, New York, Texas, Illinois, etc.), and yet those are the states where the chief Democratic leaders (Gephardt and Bonior) are from. The House is supposed to allocate influence and power according to population, and yet it is instead being allocated according to other factors such as seniority.
The thing about congressional petitions is, they work if you pick the district of an important-enough congressman to target, especially if his seat isn't contested one and he has more leeway than others to take on new initiatives.
The nature of federal districting is that, while states with small populations have few seats in the House, the ratio of citizens/congressman in those states is larger than in others. But while the populations may be small, the political clout wielded by that congressman may be disproportionately large. Daschle is a bad example since he's a Senator, but it's not an anomoly that a politician from South Dakota can end up running the show.
All it takes is one congressman championing your cause, and you have your foot in the door. The nature of partisan horsetrading is that a single politician can get his hobbyhorse enacted in order to win his vote on other issues. Exon's Communications Decency Act didn't have broad political support, but it got inserted into the Telecommuinications Act of 1996 all the same, as part of such a deal. It's all the easier when the cause is one that has vocal public support and few proponents except among enforcement agencies. They listen to enforcement agencies, but they're elected by the people, so when push comes to shove, politicians will surprisingly side with the latter more than you'd think.
Sucks for Dmitri, though.
It's a bit of a dilemma, f'shure. When it comes to trial, the outrage that (I hope) should result from detaining a foriegn citizen over something not done on American soil could go a long way in pointing out how the DMCA lends itself to abuse.
Helps the trial. Sucks for Dmitri.
Frankly, I'm (once again) embarassed by my (so-called) representative government.
Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)
Is there a fund to support Sklyarov's family? Personally I would be happy to contribute to it - life in Russia is hard enough without having one of the family wage-earners in jail.
Making it a crime to crack that technology [...] is to delegate lawmaking to code writers.
This is one of the most crucial points to make. The DMCA doesn't just make new (more restrictive) rules on what uses of copyrighted material are legal -- it delegates the ability to make such rules to the publishers. By criminalizing circumvention of access controls, it gives the force of law to whatever restrictions the publisher sees fit to put in place. In effect, it gives the publisher legislative power -- the ability to decide what is or isn't legal. Making corporations part of the government hardly seems appropriate.
Two other important points about the DMCA as I understand it: one is that, while it does make an exception for "fair use", that applies only to the circumvention clause, not the distribution-of-circumvention-devices one. The problem is that, since breaking an access control is beyond the abilities of all but a very few people, the effect is the same. Also, the fact that it talks about measures that "control access", instead of "prevent copying", allows the restrictions to extend into every aspect of the manner in which one enjoys the product -- what kind of stereo, CD/DVD player, or TV set you can use to play it, where you can do so, what parts you can fast-forward through, etc., which has nothing to do with copying, but does create new revenue opportunities for publishers.
Here's a new one: suppose a publisher wanted to make a book that I could only read while sitting in an armchair, not while lying in bed -- say they print it on some special high-tech paper that would turn dark when held at an upright angle. They might want to charge me extra for the ability to read in bed, or they might for some unfathomable reason simply want to insist that I can only read the book while sitting up. The DMCA would give even this the force of law! I would not be allowed to cicumvent it -- or rather, I could, but then I would not be allowed to tell anyone else how I did it, and if it was so difficult that only a handful of people could do it, then the rest of us would be bound by it. How can this be?
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
As an aside, the recent protests did actually make it on the news in some places, and I think this article in the Times is a reflection of that. This is almost simple enough for average people to understand, if not care about.
Check my Go-related blog for beginners: DGD
and this was not a staged protest. Get they guy out of jail and let him go home. If this was going to be staged, Prof. F would have been a better choice but HE was too smart to get involved on the criminal side. I am sorely embarassed for the way our Government has treated Dmitry. This is what I would expect from China, not the 'so-called' Land of the Free, more to the point these days, Land of the Hypocrites :(
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Interesting point; judging from the context you're qouting, you're assuming here that most people are honest. (maybe we need to fight over the definition of "honesty") But, IMHO most people are willing to break an abstract law if there's little chance it's their ass on the line. Witness the mentality of your average speeder. Or looters. If everybody's stealing shit they probably won't be caught.
(No I don't want to debate whether mp3s should be freely downloadable or not, it's quite separate to the point I'm trying to make)
You're categorizing "honest" people based on harmfulness. Which is fine per se, I was just categorizing based on integrity.
(rant) In fact, since I have karma to burn, I will hypothesize that the thought process that goes on in a looter's mind is not much different than that which happens in that of your **typical** mp3 downloader. (blatant stereotyping ahead) .. "What I want right now is easy and convenient. I have little chance of being caught. It might be vaguely wrong but (in the looter's case) insurance will pay for it. Since in theory a faceless corporation suffers (not really) and perhaps because it is vaguely wrong, I get a small feeling of sticking it to The Man even though I'm actually just leeching." (/rant)
By my definition of "honest people", most people aren't honest. (I'm not.) They're not even being honest with themselves.
p.s. no, speeding does not nescessarily make you dishonest. If you believe there is nothing wrong with speeding, then you're being honest. It's not about the act; it's about how you act based on your perceptions.
t.
PS: say hi to Dmitry for me.
1) Lessig never states that the US is alone in having this sort of law. In the 7th paragraph of the article he states that "America is essentially alone..."
2) A quick scan of some mass media news sites (USA Today, CNN, the BBC, ABC News and Fox News) confirms this, it isn't mentioned at all. Although Fox News and the BBC each get partial credit for a story on the Scarfo case (the keyboard tap and search warrant thing).
3) A Supreme Court decision would be best, but a lower court victory would indicate that there's something so very wrong with the DMCA that even a lower court can articulate the problems.
4) Most of us do.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Among the sad parts about many of the B&E cases is use of poor locks. Adobe used a horribly weak door/lock in their main offices. If companies really wanted to protect their files, they should use stronger locks that are difficult to pick. By using cheap locks, they are practically asking for people to break into their offices so they can slap that person (or persons) with criminal charges and civil suits.
Whatever.
Unless I'm completely mistaken, part of the point about Carnivore getting overt funding was that they would now have to do detailed reports to the House Judiciary Committee on pretty much everything having to do with how the program gets used. While I agree that Carnivore itself sucks, at least this may mean that it isn't used as frequently and they do have to report to someone outside their own agency. Looked like fairly decent reporting too...here's the breakdown if you haven't checked the link:
I guess it at least makes me feel a little better that they have to report their use instead of just using it surreptitiously. Then again, I could be totally off base... I haven't followed previous Carnivore stories, so I don't know when, if or how it's been used so far.
~ Leilah
If he changes it, then that invalidates all previously collected signatures.
Of course, this assumes that he resides in a non-UCITA state. Who knows what it means in Virginia.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
> So I propose that the US and Russia have a good, old fashioned, prisoner exchange.
Yeah, I can't help but think that, at least in some sense, Dmitry is just a pawn in the neo- cold war.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yeah, poor girl, both of her husbands are in jail!
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Among the sad parts about many of the DMCA cases is use of poor protection schemes.
The companies probably find weak schemes more useful. At least weak encryption lets them get people thrown in jail.
Meanwhile, Taiwan is spewing a steady stream of bootlegs, and the companies can't do a darn thing about it. If they started using strong encryption, they wouldn't even have the satisfaction of seeing someone slammed in the pokey now and then.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Better analogy: I live in the UK. I wrote to my MP about Dmitry and said that if his arrest is valid then we should be arresting all handgun owning Americans as they get off the plane. :-)
Sig pending!
I for one am glad that so far most schemes have been so weak. I consider the whole scheme of needing "permission" from a machine to do what I will with my media extremely distasteful. If I have some new gadget that is entirely capable of playing a song I legally aquired then I should have every right to do that. Unfortunately, the difference between a second device I own and a device someone else owns is indistinguishable without some equally distasteful Orwellian technology.
I think there is a fundamental flaw in the idea of using encryption to publish things anyway. Encryption is a method of making a pattern of data a "secret". Once the data is decrypted, that layer of protection is removed and the only thing keeping the data secret is the discretion of the recipient. This may work when the two people involved mutually trust each other to keep the data secret, but unfortunately many people are even aware of a copyright holder's rights to be the sole source of reproduction and Napster and the issues surrounding it have made file sharing into a prepetual Boston Tea Party. Nearly all recipients in this scheme are untrustworthy of keeping anything from the publisher secret, whether out of ignorance or spite.
Ultimately, it's like trying to privately tell something (the same thing) to a significant proportion of the country, announce to the world that you're telling these people that secret, and expecting them not to tell the rest. Its human nature to want to share a cultural experience with others; it establishes a common frame of reference, and telling another to "buy your own" rather than giving them a copy (assuming they are not present to veiw it on your won equipment) is not a very nice way to establish that cultural bond.
Ok, enough pointless ranting for one night.
All of your reasons are good ones, but to the best of my knowledge the EFF and protesters aren't trying to turn Dmitry into a "poster-boy". As you suggest, they're trying very hard to get him released so he can go home, and at the moment the best way to go about that is to bring to light the inherent flaws in the DMCA. If Dmitry was a poster-boy, the protesters wouldn't be carrying signs saying "Free Dmitry" and citing the DMCA as the reason he's unjustly imprisoned, they'd be carrying signs that say "Repeal the DMCA" and citing Dmitry as a reason it's unjust.
Cheers,
levine
What I find interesting here is that not only is this just one big blatant Copyright violation. It is also an example of one of the main arguments for such laws as the DMCA, to prevent people from just blatantly making exact digital copies of things. (Although, I'd doubt that this is any more than a violation of copyright law since there were no protections against copying.) As an AC then, it appears that you are contributing to the argument towards such horrendus laws like the DMCA. Of course I also find it ammusing that this post ended up with a +5 rating. ;-)
Yo, it __IS__ a representative government, much as it doesn't represent what you want. There were apparently enough morons out there to vote other morons into office, who, in keeping with their moronhood, voted FOR the DMCA.
SO VOTE FOR NEW REPS FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!
(www.lp.org)
It is also an example of one of the main arguments for such laws as the DMCA, to prevent people from just blatantly making exact digital copies of things.
That's almost correct, but not quite. The DMCA is designed to counter casual copying, not blatant copying. Certain countries are known as blatant copyright violators, but the DMCA does nothing to prevent them from continuing in this practice. Blatant violations-- such as the post in question-- are, and in most cases probably should, be illegal, even without DMCA.
Instead, the DMCA is intended to prevent you from making a copy of a cd (or whatever) that you own, even though the right to copy your own media is legally protected under several different laws (fair use, timeshifting)(though you obviously cannot distribute, loan, etc, your copy). The DMCA is, pure and simple, a way to force the average consumer to buy multiple copies of a CD, etc. It has basically no other practical value, and it does nothing to prevent organized piracy.
He tried to distribute and sell a circumvention device at a convention in the United States of America.
No, he didn't. He wrote an algorithm that was used in a program published by his employer. This is like putting my (imaginary) friend Joe in jail since he was involved in writing Windows 95.
Also remember that the program is legal in Russia, and most of the rest of the world. Think of it this way. We have put him in jail for doing something, in his country, what is legal, again in his country. Next, we'll start fining German tourists for speeding, even though the actual infraction happened when they were still in Germany. Or to take it a step further, say you're a German citizen, driving (legally) at 100MPH, and you are in an accident involving an American. You live, the American dies. Based on our current path, you better not ever set foot in America. You'll probably be placed on trial for vehicular manslaughter, even though you did not break any laws in your country.
(BTW, I agree with you point, but it's important to keep these distinctions clear.)
Artistic license. Technically, an optimizing "English compiler" would change "Dimitry's wife's husband" to just "Dimitry", and it would be just the same thing. The people on slashdot mostly analyze everything technically. But this is not the same as seeing "if (!(!(i==3)))" in source code .. this is something that is meant to be read by people, and as such, "Dimitry's wife's husband" not only provides additional information that would otherwise not be conveyed (i.e. he is married), but in the context of human emotions and compassion, that extra information also helps readers to realise that this is just another regular human like them, and that he also has loved ones that will be feeling pain now. So it evokes more empathy and/or sympathy and compassion than just (for example) "a Russian hacker", which is a very anonymous term.
Stop thinking so technically .. the human brain isn't a compiler, human behaviour and reasoning involve many fuzzy, illogical constructs.
-----
I heard a saying once, "Locks are made to keep honest people out".
Wasn't that more like, "Locks are made to keep honest people honest"?
The message therein is that if you use locks, only the people who REALLY want to get in will try to, and prevent 'casual passersby' from trying. A padlock is like weak encryption, if someone really wants to get in, they'll get in, but people who are not that serious won't bother to try. If you don't encrypt at all though, many of those same people would then try to eavesdrop, even if just out of curiosity - same as for padlocks, curious passersby will wonder "whats behind this gate?" if there is no padlock on it.
Its not a 'black-and-white' thing. People often make the argument "if someone really wants to crack this, they'll crack this, so why bother even trying to protect this software" (some people I work with :(). That annoys me. Its not binary (yes/no, black/white) - the number of people who will crack something follow a non-linear curve based on how much protection you put in. E.g., if you have say no protection, you'll have say 70% cracking. With 10% encryption, that'll drop automatically to say 35%. With 20% protection, it'll drop to say 17%. With 50% protection, it'll be around 2%. These figures are obviously just example figures .. but thats the idea. You can, of course, never reach 100% protection of anything (because as you say if someone really wants to get into something, they will), but if you have 95% protection, then you'll only have to worry about 0.01% of people, instead of 70%. I agree with you though, if you're going to encrypt, use strong encryption.
-----
Just an interesting thought about making criminal the activity of reverse engineering.
I heard a saying once, "Locks are made to keep honest people out". The point here is that if I INSIST on getting in, the lock won't stop me.
The encryption algorithm used is the lock. The law "protects" me against a criminal by making it a crime to break and enter. I can put a $200000 quaduple deadbolt with solid steel reinforement, 20 armed guards, and an alarm system in place if I want to keep people out, or I can buy the cheap $20 padlock that can easily be cut by a bolt cutter. The crime to break in is the same. However, one of these methods is likely to stop that person from breaking in.
A weak encryption scheme is the same as using a cereal box lock as your sole form of protection. Granted, I'll have to break it to get in, and yes, I'll still be as criminally responsible if I do, but you made it extremely easy for me. The point is, you don't HAVE to protect yourself from honest people. Honest people aren't going to steal from you.
Those that WILL steal from you won't be stopped by something as trivial as a plastic lock. You're going to have to put something strong and solid there. You're going to have to PREVENT them from breaking in. And no law is going to do that, only something that is solid and unbreakable will.
If I decide to go around taking apart locks to see which ones I'll be able to break into, I should have that right, because a lock is only SECURE if I'm able to take it apart and still not know how to break it. Encryption is the same.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Man, now using that form of grammar in the NYTimes would grab any english major's attention. It had me thinking for a second, or thirty...
...and I'm not sure we should trust this Kyle Sagan either.
If he is indicted for creating a tool, that activity was not done on US soil and US courts have no jurisdiction over it. On the other hand, if he is indicted for what he said at the convention, then it is a clear 1st Amendment case
He was indicted for neither of those violations of the DMCA. What he did that got him in hot water was try to sell and distribute a circumvention device in the US. If he hadn't been selling or distributing anything, he'd probably not be in any trouble, or at least not as much.
What did he do and where did he do it?
Was that illegal? Do the laws of the U.S.A. apply there?
He tried to distribute and sell a circumvention device at a convention in the United States of America. Selling or distributing circumvention devices is illegal under the DMCA. It's irrelevant where he wrote it because he tried to distribute it in the US. Yes, federal laws of the United States apply in the United States. I made this all clear in my original post.
"First, they came for the 'evil Russian hackers'... but I wasn't an evil Russian hacker... so.. "
Again, you misunderstand me. I'm all for freeing Dmitri. I'm just very leery of turning him into a posterboy. You're right that Adobe picked the battleground, and, while we let them do that, we're at the disadvantage. I realize that most people here are just trying to get him free, but there's a very real danger that this could turn into an anti-DMCA crusade that forgets about poor Skylarov while he rots in prison. That's what I'm worried about.
I've been wondering about this for a while, so I'm going to ask everyone (and nobody in particular): is Dmitry Skylarov a good choice as posterboy in the anti-DMCA fight? I'm beginning to think he's not, and here are my reasons, in no particular order:
1) Dmitry is not American. Now, I'm not American either, so I'm not knocking non-US citizens, but keep in mind that it's the attention and votes of the American people that matter in fixing the DMCA. They're naturally going to be more concerned about fellow Americans than somebody from a country which was their mortal enemy a decade or so ago.
2) Dmitry is a "hacker". I'm fully aware that this term is misused and twisted by the press, but it's still an issue we have to contend with. Dmitry is not some sweet old lady who could be your grandmother; he's a young guy with 'scary techie skills', and people will feel less sympathy for him because of that. Also, evil Russian Hacker has almost become a cliche, thanks to Hollywood and the rest of the media.
3) Dmitry was trying to make a profit. He wasn't just giving a talk--he was trying to sell his software. The software circumvented Adobe's eBook content access control. Selling circumvention devices is clearly against the DMCA. People are not going to be very sympathetic to a guy arrested for trying to make a profit by breaking the law, even if it is a stupid law.
4) Dmitry just wants to go home. I bet the poor guy really misses his family, doesn't give a shit about messed-up American laws, and just wants to be back on Russian soil. Is it really right for us to politicize his imprisonment if it's not the best thing for him? Sure, we should be trying to get him free, but, by turning this into war-on-DMCA, we guarantee that what might have otherwise been a low-profile case that quietly got dismissed becomes a landmark legal battle that could drag on for years.
What we really need is for an average Joe to get busted doing something that's clearly right, even if it is illegal under DMCA. Then we'll be able to prove how absurd and dangerous the law is to average Americans. By using Dmitry, we hurt his chances of going home, and we risk losing and setting a bad precedent. We must pick our battles carefully.
That is my humble opinion, folks...
Because when you get down to it, that's really all those companies care about - their bottom line, not benefiting the consumer. Serving the consumer is just one of their means to the end of making money.
owever, the crime occurred in the Soviet Union, not in the United States.
'bout ten years late. The crime ocurred in Russia, not the Soviet Union.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
No, as I understand it he didn't. The comapny which employed him did, but that's a very different thing. Furthermore, the principal of the company was present at the conference. There'd be some logic in arresting the principal, none in aresting a mere employee.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Yep. Which is why RMS's short-short story "The Right to Read" projects a world where operating systems and development software are tightly controlled by the state, only available to licenced and bonded programmers.
When I first saw that story a few years ago, I though that was a crazy, way-out idea. Now, it's a clear extrapolation of present trends.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
WTF? The article was posted in the context of a discussion on the issues. Nobody is making money (well, erm, perhaps Slashdot...uh?), and nobody is claiming credit for the article. How many of you cut out articles and put them in your cubicles?
I'm sure Larry Lessig doesn't give a fuck if we copy his articles verbatim. In fact, he probably would like us to to spread awareness (and to get more people to buy his books?). Sheesh, don't cave to the thought police.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Does anyone here remember General Manuel Antonio Noriega... President of Panama c1989.
Now tell me that America's courts will not allow someone who committed crimes outside the US to be tried, found guilty, and imprisoned in the US.
Just my £0.02 worth.
Live today. Tomorrow will cost a lot more!
So I propose that the US and Russia have a good, old fashioned, prisoner exchange. Current coverage is also available from the NY Times.
A couple of points:
... oink flap oink flap.
1) Mr. Lessig is a lawyer, so I assume he has read up on this stuff, but his claims that the US were alone in having DCMA laws suprised me. I was under the impression that europe was in fact drafting even more sweeping ones?
2) What outrage? This trial will never make to the front page, much less the evening news. The concepts are too abstract for your average joe to grasp in the 10 seconds attention span he/the newscasters will alot to the news item.
3) The only hope is (erm, I THINK this is the process, but std discl) is that he is convicted, and the appeal makes it all the way up to the supreme court which can then strike the law down as unconstitional. However, you'll recall that Dubya is appointing a couple of supreme judges this term, and we can expect that Big Business will bend the ear of the administration, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the supremes to be agree with techolibertarians like us.
4) I would LOVE to be proved wrong, but
No no no... You got it all wrong. You're supposed to install Carnivore on distributed.net. At least then, the FBI could get keystrokes and traffic, and only need one search warrant to retrieve the information.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
I thought you already knew that's where the tax refund was coming from... Guess not everyone's in the know on it.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
As Lessig says, "Something is going terribly wrong with copyright law in America."
I'd be a lot more likely to sign that declaration if there weren't myriad grammatical mistakes in it. Did no one proof it? Did the 9000+ signatories read it thoroughly? :-b
[TMB]
By LAWRENCE LESSIG
STANFORD, Calif.
Dmitri Sklyarov is a Russian programmer who, until recently, lived and worked in Moscow. He wrote a program that was legal in Russia, and in most of the world, a program his employer, ElcomSoft, then sold on the Internet. Adobe Corporation bought a copy and complained to the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the program violated American law and that, by the way, Mr. Sklyarov was about to give a lecture in Las Vegas describing the weaknesses in Adobe's electronic book software. Two weeks ago, the F.B.I. arrested Mr. Sklyarov. He still sits in a Las Vegas jail.
Something is going terribly wrong with copyright law in America. Mr. Sklyarov himself did not violate any law, and his employer did not violate anyone's copyright. What his program did was to enable the user of an Adobe eBook Reader to disable restrictions that the publisher of a particular electronic book formatted for Adobe's reader might have imposed. Adobe's eBook Reader, for example, has a read-aloud function. With it, the computer will read out loud an appropriately formatted eBook text. A publisher can disable that function for a particular eBook. Mr. Sklyarov's program would enable the purchaser of such a disabled eBook to overcome the restriction. A blind person, for example, could use ElcomSoft's program to listen to a book.
The problem from Adobe's perspective, however, is that the same software could enable a pirate to copy an electronic book otherwise readable only with Adobe's reader technology -- then sell that copy to others without the publisher's permission. That would be a copyright violation, and it is that possibility that led Congress to enact the statute that has now landed Mr. Sklyarov in jail -- the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The D.M.C.A. outlaws technologies designed to circumvent other technologies that protect copyrighted material. It is law protecting software code protecting copyright. The trouble, however, is that technologies that protect copyrighted material are never as subtle as the law of copyright. Copyright law permits fair use of copyrighted material; technologies that protect copyrighted material need not. Copyright law protects for a limited time; technologies have no such limit.
Thus when the D.M.C.A. protects technology that in turn protects copyrighted material, it often protects much more broadly than copyright law does. It makes criminal what copyright law would forgive.
Using software code to enforce law is controversial enough. Making it a crime to crack that technology, whether or not the use of that ability would be a copyright violation, is to delegate lawmaking to code writers. Yet that is precisely what the D.M.C.A. does. The relevant protection for copyrighted material becomes as the technology says, not as copyright law requires.
America is essentially alone in this strategy of techno-lawmaking. Most nations in the world -- including, importantly for Mr. Sklyarov, Russia -- regulate copyright violations through copyright law, not through laws aimed at code writers. But what the Sklyarov case means is that this controversial experiment in the United States now essentially regulates the world. If you produce and distribute code that cracks technological protection systems, and that code can be accessed in the United States, then it's just a matter of time before our F.B.I. comes knocking at your door.
This is bad law and bad policy. It not only interferes with the legitimate use of copyrighted material, it undermines security more generally. Research into security and encryption depends upon the right to crack and report. Only if weaknesses can be discovered and described openly will they be fixed.
Increasingly, in the United States, this freedom has been lost. In April, for example, Edward Felten, a Princeton professor and encryption researcher, received a letter from recording industry lawyers warning him that a paper he was about to present at a conference -- it described the weaknesses of an encryption system -- could subject him to enforcement actions under the D.M.C.A.. Mr. Felten understood the threat and decided not to present his paper. Largely as a result of this experience, he is now the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the Digital Millennium Copyright Act on First Amendment grounds.
Authors have an important and legitimate interest in protecting their copyrights. The law should help authors where it can. But the law should not push its power beyond the protection of copyright, and the law should especially not criminalize activities that are central to research in encryption and security.
Adobe understands this. After extensive meetings with the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation -- and widespread protests on the Internet, at Adobe's San Jose, Calif., headquarters, in Moscow and elsewhere -- Adobe announced it did not think the prosecution of Mr. Sklyarov was conducive to the best interests of the parties involved or of the industry.
Yet Mr. Sklyarov still languishes in jail, puzzled, no doubt, about how a free society can jail someone for writing code that was legal where written, just because he comes to the United States and gives a report on encryption weaknesses.
Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford University, is author of the forthcoming ``The Future of Ideas'' and a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation board.Mark Duell
"McOwen is being sued, and threatened with jail time, for installing the distributed.net client."
How would you like it if he installed it on every server at a company you owned, and you suddenly had to foot the bill for it? If this had happened at a small company with the client as the idle process on a large number of servers, it could have resulted in a huge financial loss that might have led to layoff. What McOwen did was horribly irresponsible, and he should have to pay back the money he cost other people!
Other countries are somehow able to have their due-process expedited. Personally, I wish the US were more like that. You wish the US was more like *Russia?* Please be a troll...oh God...please be a troll...
-- Support Ometz le-Serev.
Right on brother.
Let there be a new law in US that says: "any foreigner we don't like shall be put in prison".
You can trade as many US citizens as you like after that!
My point actually is it makes more sense to fix a broken law than look for workarounds.
Nope ... you've got it wrong ... there are no keystrokes involved in running the distributed.net client ... but if it cost the State of Georgia $.59/second/host because the distributed.net client was installed on their computers, installing the client on all the computers the FBI/CIA/DIA/NSA have would bankrupt the Federal Government in, oh, about a week and a half ...
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
utter rubbish
In fact, the statute does include the word "effective" means of protection. In Dmitiry's case, this opens the door to the "reasonably effective" argument.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
utter rubbish
Which is why you have to wait for a karma whore to post a reg-less link or details of a phony account (I think I saw one around comment #3 with ID: slashdot2000i PASSWORD: slashdot2000).
It may seem slightly cowardly, but at least the site is still up and running. Then again, just think of the international geek backlash if anyone tried to shut Slashdot down....
you had better not talk about large multi-national corporations, or peacefully show your objection to them in a manner of speech that is protected by the first ammendment. Or the nice police will show you their fancy equipment that you bought with your tax dollars. oh well.
"It has always been this way and it won't change, god bless the fucked up USA" The Briefs
It isn't okay for the US to do it, that's what all the fuss is about. Nice try on the trolling though.
Want some indy electronic (and other) music?
This sig intentionally left blank.
Take a good look at that alphabetized list.
Thank you for explaining my point to me. Without your assistance, I would have had no idea what I was trying to say.
Let's turn the tables on the Dmitry thing for just a sec. If I were to write an article about how communism sucks big hairy cock, while still living in the US, then travel to China (where saying such things is against the law) to give a speech on a related-but-legal topic, they could toss my ass in jail, and they would be "evil commies", right? The American people would freak, and the press would have a field day (see spy plane).
Why is it okay for us to do it to folks from other countries?
Wow, I've been doing this for years, I think it make heaps of sense.
At first I thought it was just becuase I didn't like movies, but then discovered that I just don't like watching shit (same goes for TV). I see maybe half a dozen movies (including rentals) a year.
I came to this realisation at party talking to a buch of film students. The coverstation turned to films (as usually does with film students) and I made the bold statemnent that I, "don't like movies"!
These people couldn't understand that I may not like movies. After about 2 hours of debate it came down to us actually agreeing that almost all movies are shite (I conceded that I have liked some movies and they conceded that most movies suck).
Australian? Join EFA
Very like RMS to make a simple observation about human nature, and base on it a proposal that seems at once perfectly natural and hopelessly naive. This seems a paradox only until you realize that RMS works on the time scale of a lifetime. He's already demonstrated that on that scale, the hopeless becomes conceivable. When you step back far enough, he begins to look downright pragmatic.
Observe that your suggestion requires one to reevaluate every purchase in terms of an artificial $5, while his merely to reconsider based on a simple criterion (that I ought to have considered in the first place). I'm not actually commenting on which idea is more effective--I really don't know. But his has an appeal to me that yours lacks.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
Thank you. I have to wonder one thing - if the mafia was still around as it was in the 20's and 30's (in strength and in "attitude"), would things be different?
If you could send me an email / give more info on some wonderful DA's, it would be great. I'm thinking of making a wall of shame page of figures in politics, etc...
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Remember, if you oppose the DMCA, then you really need to let your congressman/senator know about it! Here is a letter that I just sent to a senator from my State who chairs the Judiciary committee.
Senator Leahy,
I am writing today to raise my voice in protest against the unfortunate arrest and subsequent jailing of a Russian programmer, Dmitry Sklyarov. I have no doubts that you have at least heard of this issue. For the moment, let us ignore the unconstitutional nature of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (the law the Mr. Sklyarov has been accused of violating). The "violation" was the writing of a piece of software that removes the encryption from an Adobe E-book. Should this be illegal? Probably not. Is it? Yes. However, the crime occurred in the Soviet Union, not in the United States. I feel that I should add that the inability to back up an E-Book is actually a crime in the Soviet Union, and Sklyarov created software that circumvented this. I shudder to think what would happen if every citizen of the Unites States could be arrested in a foreign country for doing something considered perfectly legal in the U.S.
This sad case only underscores something that is very wrong with our country today; under the DMCA, a programmer can be arrested for simply writing a piece of software. This software does not have to be used illegally; simply the fact that it can be used illegally is enough to incriminate someone. If one applies this logic to other areas of the world, it is easy to see that this idea is patently ridiculous. A hunting rifle is not illegal because it could be used to commit a homicide. A locksmith's tools are not illegal because they could conceivably be used to break into somebody's home. Thus, I would argue that a piece of software should not be considered illegal based on only one possible use. Fair use rights are being overturned in order to give corporations far more control than copyright should allow. The fact is, these corporations are able to pay lobbyists and make large campaign contributions, while the average citizen, whose rights are being trampled upon, does not have the resources to defend himself. I strongly urge you to look at this inherently flawed piece of legislation, and join with the few other sane souls in the Senate who have finally seen the law for what it truly is.
As a life-long Vermonter and a constituent, a reply would be greatly valued. You most likely do not recall, but we have met several times in Washington years ago during a "Model Congress" outing from Vermont. At the time, I was impressed by your technical knowledge and awareness of issues surrounding the rapid growth of technology. I hope that the years have not changed this.
-------
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
The DOJ was finally allowed to install Carnivore.
David McOwen is going for installing the destributed.net client.
SOLUTION!
Install distributed.net on Carnivore.
Kalrand
-The Voice of Reason
this is funny not offtopic..
whoot!
The U.S.'s representative democracy doesn't seem all that democratic to me. Sure, you get to elect a 'leader', which is akin to a WinAmp skin. Only corporations get to have a significant vote on issues, through 'campaign contributions'.
The definition of citizenship in the U.S. is not all clear to me. Does the constitution (a mighty fine bill) actually apply to all people who live and were born in the U.S.A.? Some Americans I've talked to say not, and are busy getting land patents just so they truely live as free Americans.
How much free speech do you really have in the U.S.A.? Are you allowed to talk about the CIA's puppeteering of 'terrorist' bombings, or the Budhoo resignation from the IMF, or perhaps even the NSA's 'legal' right to 'disappear' anyone who they think is bad for 'national security'
I'm sorry if this sounds like flamebait, but I'm disturbed by the number of Americans who claim they're Free and what a Great Country they have, despite the U.S. government.
Blancmange
See me in clips at my site (bottom of page). I'm the nerd with the bulging belly. :) [wait, "nerd" isn't a good distinguishing factor in this group]
I think we (100+ of us) were very effective in making a lot of noice about the cause to either repeal the DMCA or at least clean up the stuff related to fair use. We can't let another Dmitry be arrested with the unconstitutional provisions of this bad law.
The main downer of course is that there wasn't a lot more people (esp. programmers) there. I say it's high time for programmers to shake off their apathy and become Free Speech activists. Our country needs us.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
IIRC, the DMCA does require "reasonably effective" means of protection- somewhat vague, but if it were enforced that way the protection schemes would probably have to be stronger. The problem is that the legal deterrent itself is much more than "reasonably effective" no matter how weak the encryption, just being faced with the time and money required to defend yourself whether guilty or innocent. This is one reason why the law needs to be repealed.
I hope but doubt that Skylarov can get off on the reasonable effectiveness clause so that companies think twice.
We're all IT professionals. There's no question that there are some sysadmins/wedmasters, etc that work at high profile companies. Get all the IT staff at your company to go along with you and take down your company's site with a "We'll be back as soon as Dmitry is freed" page. Sure, you'd catch hell from the higher ups, but if everyone's in on this, they can't fire everyone ;-) You'd get the attention of the CEOs, etc who are the source of most politicians campaign piggybanks....... Just a thought. Too bad we can't stand as one like the unions of yesterday....or hell, the Europeans still do it..but America has lost it.
This is what I have been saying for a long time. Why undermine network security so that Adobe, RIAA, and MPAA can increase their profits?
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Yeah. Your brother... Your big brother.... Big Brother....
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This analogy is moot. For one thing, China is not a democracy, therefore, they can do that. The United States, however, is a democracy. The whole point behind a democracy is:
A: The people elect leaders to represent them in the government B: The people are free to say whatever they please, without fear of persecution.
Yeah, you're singing to the choir... Ever notice how those "freaky radicals" don't seem so freaky any more??? You know the ones... they wear camoflage, own guns, play war games hiding in the remaining wooded areas of the country? Those guys saying crazy things like "let's take our country back!" They haven't disappeared... actually they've grown in numbers. Why aren't they in the news any more? Two simple reasons: (1) the story has been told many times before and they hate too many repeats of the same boring news and (2) people are starting to side with the "crazies."
In response to point A I think it's pretty obvious that the people are NOT being repesented at all! Did anyone notice the secret way the DMCA was passed in the first place??? WAY too few even voted on it. The people didn't ask for it (obviously). Who was being represented these days?
I'm not advocating any particular movement that involves violence but I certainly advocate beoing LOUD and NOISY when it comes to communicating with the government!! Damn people! They can't ignore you...they can try but they can't. It becomes VERY noticable when we are all speaking. And sending off an email to congress and to the whitehouse isn't so freaking hard!! Just do it.
The more relevant postscript is that he is being criminally prosecuted and faces more jail time than a typical rapist or murderer, for something that merited sacking at most.
He violated what is often perceived as a nuisance-level TOS provision in network administration, did exceed his authority in doing so, and got fired. (Even that may have been excessive, considering the tameness of the offense, but in these days of viruses and worms and such I can understand the knee-jerk overreaction.)
Now the State is going to crush him like a bug. Even if he prevails in trial he will be wiped out financially, his name dragged through the newspapers, and suffer years of uncertainty about his future. There is nothing whatsoever fair or just about this.
The sad thing is that there is little we can do about District Attorneys who violate all standards of reasonableness and humanity in this way. Near here a few years ago our DA launched an aggressive prosecution against a woman whose baby died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Even her pediatrician testified for her, but she was poor and ill-spoken and the white middle-class jurists of the more affluent community next door convicted her of negligent homicide.
It's either a wonderful sign of how stable the US is, or a tragic sign of what sheep we've become, that none of these evil pieces of shit ever get assassinated.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
IDG has a good writeup including info from the Boston protests here.
http://www.idg.net/ic_660027_1794_9-10000.html for the link paranoid.
No silly reg required, so I won't bother to quote the whole article here.
Why doesn't anyone ever post links to nytimes with archives.nytimes.com, rather than www.nytimes.com, so you don't have to register at all?
I should probably add that I work in the computer security research field, and that my company is among those doing research into protecting coyrights. Because I fear someone from management might be reading this, my apologies but I will not be telling what company I work for.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
A co-worker of mine believes that some organizations actually use weak protections intentionally so that they can gain revenue by suing those that break the protection.
There are many avenues out there for companies to find strong and effective means of encryption and protection. Undoubtably there are ethics-abiding companies who have started funding research (both academic and corporate) into this topic of protecting copyrighted works.
We can only hope that someday companies are able to look past their wallets and ask themselves if they are doing enough to protect the intellectual property of others. If a company fails to use effective means to protect a copyright, by all means individuals like Dimitry and Dr Felton should be allowed to break them and show them what not to do.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.