Slashdot Mirror
Earth to Media: This kid is still in jail
When reporters were threatened with law enforcement pressure and jail during the Watergate and Pentagon Papers cases, whole forests were felled in the pre-digital age with stories, books, even movies about courageous reporters fighting for the First Amendment against government oppression. Not a single reporter was jailed in those cases, not even for an hour, even though many broke federal and other laws in gathering the information they reported.
You won't see any discussion of Dmitri Sklyarov on Washington talk shows, the evening news, or the cover of the weekly newsmagazines. But he is stuck in jail.
He was arrested by the FBI two weeks ago for writing and selling a program that allegedly violates the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, just after giving a lecture detailing alleged weaknesses in Adobe's electronic book software.
There is hardly a single serious lawyer or constitutional scholar who doesn't see the dangers of this twisted use of the DMCA. "The DMCA outlaws technologies designed to circumvent other technologies that protect copyrighted material," wrote Lawrence Lessig in the New York Times this week. "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, cautions Lessig, a law professor at Stanford, when the DMCA protects technology that in turns protects copyrighted material, it can -- as in the Sklyarov case -- offer protection that is much broader than copyright law was meant to be. It criminalizes what would be legal under existing copyright law, including certain kinds of criticism and speech and research. This law is a top-to-bottom creation of entertainment companies working with their hired lawyers and lobbyists to curb the flow of information online for profit. It was not enacted in the public interest, or even in the best interests of copyright. Lessig and others have pointed out that Sklyarov's software violated no one's copyright, even if it runs afoul of the DMCA.
In the Sklyarov case, there are several noxious consequences. His arrest chills criticism of software, and of new technologies and the powerful companies that create them. It also undermines security -- one of the very things the DMCA is supposed to protect. How can weaknesses and flaws in security and encryption programs be discovered if they can't be shared, discussed or explored?
Example: a staple feature of newspaper reporters in big cities is to go to local airports annually and test security procedures by carrying toy guns, knives or unloaded weapons into terminals. Although they could technically be charged under federal laws prohibiting such behavior, they are not. These reporters are never prosecuted. That's because courts have repeatedly ruled that the reporters are carrying out activities that are protected by the First Amendment -- they are stretching or even breaking regulations on behalf of the public welfare. Within limits (most public safety grounds) courts have protected this kind of activity. Just because Sklyarov is a hacker doesn't mean he's not acting as a journalist, or entitled to journalistic protections.
This is a corporate perversion of the original intent of copyright law, meant to protect authors for a limited time so that they would have some financial incentive to generate ideas, which then entered the public domain so that they could receive the widest possible distribution. It was never the intention of the authors of American copyright law to sell ideas and intellectual property to greedy corporations in perpetuity, especially at the expense of free speech and the ability to criticize powerful institutions.
In April, Princeton Professor Edward Felten, an encryption researcher, received a letter from record industry lawyers warning him that a paper he was about to present at a hacker conference -- the paper described the weaknesses of an encryption system -- could subject him to criminal actions under the DMCA. Felten withdrew the paper, and is now the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the DMCA on First Amendment grounds.
None of this helps Sklyarov, who remains in jail. Were he a reporter for the Washington Post or New York Times challenging claims of Microsoft or Adobe or Disney, you can only imagine the media furor, and the pressure being brought to bear on politicians and federal officials to get him out. It would certainly be loud enough to help ensure his release while lawyers get to slug out what ought clearly to be a civil, not a criminal, issue.
The failure to connect his case with their own rights and traditions is a colossal media blunder, short-sighted and self-destructive. If the DMCA stands, and people like Dmitri Sklyarov are tossed into jail because they criticized the code, claims or procedures of powerful corporations or institutions based on research these institutions believe should remain private and proprietary, then the entertainment lobby will have done the unthinkable. They will have permanently altered the First Amendment and the protection it has always accorded free, controversial and offensive speech. And the Net will become a very different kind of place, not only for coders and hackers but for any person who loves the unique freedom it has offered for nearly a generation.
1) He has the right to meet with representatives of the Russian Embassy. That has not happened. This is a right guaranteed by treaty.
2) It doesn't matter whether he is a US citizen or not, he has a right to due process.
Look at the hell the U.S. had to go through to get a convicted murderer(Ira Einhorn) extradited from France.
Not exactly apples to apples comparison, is it?
But the Einhorn case could have been sped up if it hadn't been for the idiots in Pennsylvania trying him in absentia. That was a screw up on their part, not France's.
Do you see the difference?
Why should the U.S. afford a foreign national the opportunity to escape?
Why have bail at all then? Anyone could flee from the jurisdiction they are indicted in, can't they? Take his passport.
Sorry, but the constitution just doesn't come into play in this instance.
Why, just because you've said so?
The Supreme Court has said otherwise. They still gave Cuban's the right to due process (it took forever, but they got their day in court) when Castro emptied his jails and sent the felons north. The Supreme Court just told the Immigration Service that they cannot hold foreign nationals without charging them - even when they have served their sentences.
Sounds like due process to me (derived, my dear colleage, from the Constitution).
Foreign nationals should behave themselves in any country they visit.
That is a given, isn't it?
Are you saying that we shouldn't assume he is innocent until proven guilty?
Just because the the U.S. appears to be more liberal with accused criminals than many other countries does not mean that the same liberal treatment can or should be extended to a foreign national.
Right; let's just jettison the Constitution when it becomes a problem.
I hope you're not running for an elected office.
Non citizens should be made fully aware that they neither deserve nor get the same priviledges as a citizen.
And on that point, as with so many others in this thread, you are just dead wrong.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Why don't people here do what people have been doing for years. Something that, in the information age, is easier than ever. Write your representatives. Your congressman, your senators. They all have web sites and e-mail. E-mail them and tell them what you think about the arrest. Tell them what you think of the DMCA. That's how you influence the laws they make.
Despite what many people think, your representatives aren't just there to serve the interests of lobbyists, though they make a lot of progress because they're persistant. They WANT to get re-elected, and you're the ones that elect them. They know that, and if enough people complain, they're going to do what you want because if enough of us complain, they're going to know their job is in jeapordy.
Remember, we live in a Republic (not a Democracy as everyone is fond of saying, read about the difference). You representatives are elected by YOU. That means that YOU can tell them they suck and if they don't straighten up and fly right, you won't vote for them the next time they're up for re-election.
Just my personal opinion, but I've written my representatives. I've e-mailed the president. They know my view. If enough people do the same, I guarantee you that this stuff, while not responded to personally, goes into a statistics sheet that tells them, at the end of the day, where their supporters stand.
I don't say this unknowing. I have an uncle who was a U.S. senator up untila couple of years ago, and e-mail was used heavily to gauge the opinions of the people in his office, and I'm pretty sure that he was the rule, not the exception. They all have software that makes this stuff (e-mailed opinions) pretty easy to quantify without having to read each and every e-mail in detail.
msnbc has a story on it here
-=[the machine masters the grim and the dumb]=-
The MEDIA lobbied to get DMCA passed through congress... they know it's a shady law.
After the whole DeCSS thing, the public opinion swayed against the DMCA...
So it makes sense that the media isn't giving a nanosecond towards Dmitri.... they don't want any more bad press about their DMCA.
Once people realize that the DMCA is a violation of our US constitution - people will fight to get rid of it! The media doesn't want to lose their golden sword!
[Connection closed by foreign host]
woah, did you see the end of that article?
That's a neat little scenario of abusing the DMCA the guy mentions:
Virus writers can use the DMCA in a perverse way. Because computer viruses are programs, they can be copyrighted just like a book, song, or movie. If a virus writer were to use encryption to hide the code of a virus, an anti-virus company could be forbidden by the DMCA to see how the virus works without first getting the permission of the virus writer. If they didn't, a virus writer could sue the anti-virus company under the DMCA!
Now THAT is a nifty idea. Someone's GOT to try this. Not me though, I have vacation time coming up and I'm not going to spend it in prison!
-- Kengineer
Bizarro Earth: Where a talented engineer who has been imprisoned by a repressive USA government longs to return to Russia so he can be free. Could any of us imagined this scenario 15 years ago?
-Patric
The best thing to do would be for people to send editorials en masse to very elite papers like the Washington Post, LA Times, NY Times, etc. By having the review boards receive hundreds if not thousands of similar-sounding editorials and commentaries, they would become inclined to select the better submissions and publish them, or possibly send out reporters to find out what the news is regarding Dimitry and DMCA.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
It is simple why the media as a whole has not reported on this:
Until he fits into one of these "popular" stories his story is never going to be seen on CNN. I think that Al Franken was right calling it "Infotainment".
[End of diatribe. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...] - Larry Wall in Configure from the perl