Slashdot Mirror
Elcomsoft Case Proceeds; U.S. Claims Jurisdiction
An anonymous reader sent in this Reuters article noting that the Elcomsoft case will go forward. Elcomsoft had asserted that the United States didn't have jurisdiction. This is not really ground-breaking news; Elcomsoft did sell its software to people in the United States and it's not surprising that a U.S. court would claim jurisdiction over this. Elcomsoft is also claiming that enforcement of the DMCA violates the Constitutional right to free speech, and that the part of the DMCA which prohibits distributing devices which circumvent protection measures is so vague that enforcement of it violates the Constitutional right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. (See EFF's archive for more.) One or both of these claims may have a greater chance of success than the jurisdiction claim.
Just in case you thought Dmitry Skylarov was the only one dealing with this sort of thing...
Land of the free my ass.
What if, after every challenge and appeal, they are found guilty of violating the DMCA. What if after the judgement all employees bog off back to Russia, including Dimitri. How is the US going to enforce a judgement against them?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
even though the activity transpired over the Internet the United States still has jurisdiction.
This is definitely not good news. It means basically that you could even get extradited to be tried in the U.S. if they so request. Not particularly good news for a lot of people starting with Amsterdam's pr0n industry to the Norwegian DECSS guy...
So it looks like Alan Cox was overreacting: you don't have to avoid going to the States, the'll come after you if they really want. Not funny at all.
-- No sig today
thirty years ago would never have predicted or even dreamed that a Russian software company would be defending the rights of Americans and going to court in a bid to uphold the American Constitution.
The 21st century: an upside-down circus!
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Jurasdiction has lately been a problem for the courts of the world.
Elcomsoft: a Russian company that sold product over the internet, and some (ok, most) of it's buyers were in the states.Yahoo France: an American company that peddled its wares to the French people of the world (mostly in France).
If the US can claim jurasdiction over elcomsoft, does it not follow that france can claim jurasdiction over Yahoo France? And if this is the case, do the American people not forfeit their right to cause an uproar when an American company is subject to non-American rules?
Food for thought.
It's multiple lines of defense. First they argue that they are not bound by US law and if that works then the whole issue is moot. They aren't in any trouble and can go if they please. Now that they've been found to be in US jurisdiction they are arguing that the "law" they violated goes against the US Constitution anyway.
In other words, your laws shouldn't apply to us...but if they do, then *all* of your laws must apply and by those laws the charges are unconstitutional.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
The eBook software is still available. Obviously you shouldn't click on the links or you might accidentally download it.
This isn't a surprise.
The US will do what they please, it is one of the reasons people get pissed off.
The journalist (Pearl?) in pakistan, they want to extradite the accused to the US.
The crime was murder in pakistan, why extradite to the US? Because he was an American?
US citizens and the US government want everyone to follow US laws and courts. They are using their power and influence to make countries comply (Ukraine).
Is this really a shock to anyone?
Although this is somewhat poorly worded it isn't intended as a troll, sorry I'm an engineer not an editor.
You can't have it both ways at once, and I think that's the defense plan.
If jurisdiction in this case is denied, then the case is won. If jurisdiction is allowed, then they have the right to claim constitutional rights in the U.S. since the courts operate under constitutional law.
All the drivers in the U.K. are to be cited for reckless driving for not adhering to U.S. traffic standards. It has been reported that operators of motor vehicles in the U.K. have been defying U.S. law which states that traffic is to keep to the right side of the road.
One U.S. official said under condition of anonymity, "...those bastards have no respect for the law! Defiantly driving on the wrong side of the road like that! You'd think they owned their own country or something! They're Revolutionary Rebelious Terrorist!!"
Clearly since U.S. law states that all drive on the right side of the road, all the rest of the world should comply with our safety standards -- after all, it is for their own good. We have roads and they have roads. They are connected by sea-lanes and air traffic. There is enough of a connection between our countries that our law should apply to them.
*grinning*
Imagine for a moment that this isn't
Well, damn, to start, I guess that you'd say this particular modest proposal comes on the heels of a thrilling class for a new TPS report system. Somewhere between that, and reading more, new, and improved evidence of my country's collective insanity, I think it might just be time to propose something.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't really think that the proposal included herein could ever be adopted, in fact, I think that among other things, it would guarantee that the U.S. government become even more ineffectual.
Of course, I'm not sure there's anything much wrong with that.
With much more adieu:
A Modest Proposal; Congress's own Sandbox
Whereas the Congress of the United States in recent years has at times errantly passed bills (which, were of course enacted into law by the largely disinterested executive branch) which patently subvert, abuse, and remove Constitutionally granted rights; and whereas the enforcement of those selfsame laws does embarass and continually deflate the image of America itself in the global arena, I find it necessary to propose that the Judicial branch of the United States government be empowered (in a proper use of the verb "to empower" I mean, both given the responsibility for, and the authority to....) to create for Congress a special organization with the intended purpose and justification as outlined below.
1. To act as a "legal sandbox" for bills submitted.
Much akin to my beloved bounds-checker Purify ( *snickers are heard off text* . . . *a quote plays* "What do you fu^H^H !@#$!@%^*(& mean there's a memory leak . . . . Oh, it's in a Win9X system DLL? . . . . um, sure, why not"), the purpose of this "legal sandbox" would be to allow Congresscritters to "test" the legalese (and even the content) of the bill against the Constitution.
Unfortunately, of course, the much shortened interface "const bool isConstitutional(struct Bill* pb);" didnt make it into the interface of the latest MS grammar checker. This implies that real, breathing, perhaps even thinking people (or at least hypertrophied Perl scripts) will have to comb through the bills submitted and actually (wait for it)
Think.
I know this is a terrible price to pay, but the US Supreme court seems like it might (at times) be up to the task, or at least up to picking the right scripts (a little Perl, a little Sed, mix, stir with PHP and bam, "Court-In-A-Box").
2. To act as a source of informed Amicus Curare *smirks* information to all parties in future action
Hardly a difficult sort of solution (albeit somewhat final), the information gleaned from close legal study of the bills submitted would be made available to all, and directed to courts considering cases under the bills in question.
Presumably, of course, these two chartering planks would be sufficient statement of course; however, I am sure that providing a summary of the probable constitutionality and research into the related issues to the Judicial Branch would be required. In addition, I suspect that a large number of concerned citizens would request access to this information.
Of course . . . now we just have to figure out how to raise an exception in Congress, perhaps something like "std::assert(!congresscritter_instance.isCorporat
If you haul out a copy of the Bill of Rights (or search on Google if you don't have a paper copy handy), read them very carefully. Look a the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Does it say, "the people shall have the right to peaceably assemble"? No, it says that Congress can't make a law abridging that right, implicitly assuming that the people have that right. Or the rights catch-all amendment, the Ninth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The framers of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence believed that rights were granted by a higher power than man or government, and as such could never be granted or taken away by man or government. The Bill of Rights was written, not to grant rights to citizens, but to put boundaries on the powers the government would try to excercise. When you talk about "rights granted by the Constitution", you are actually belittling your rights, as you are saying that they were granted to you by man and thus could be taken from you by man. They can't be; they can only be given away, but that's the road you're starting down when you don't properly recoginze the origin of your rights.
So, properly recognizing the source of rights as above man or government, is it particually surprising that a foreign entity could offer a First and Fifth Amendment argument in a case? It's not to me. I would view a refusal to allow such an argument as a major threat to the rights of all US citizens, as it would be an implicit assertion that the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are granted (and thus can be taken away) at the US government level.
We now return you to your normal, light, funny Slashdot, already in progress. Time in.
Chris Beckenbach