New RedHat Kernel Patch Illegal to Explain to U.S. Users

Russellkhan writes "The Register is running a story about a new RedHat kernel patch that cannot be explained to U.S. citizens or others in the U.S. because of DMCA restrictions. The illegal explanation is hosted at Thefreeworld.net, a site created specifically to deal with these DMCA issues."

Comments

Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Alan Cox have a similar issue on an old patch for exactly the same reasons?

Maybe the Slashdot crew could try reading their own site once in a while.

Re:Again?

[kfg]

Didn't? Rumor has it that Alan Cox is explicitly involved in *this* patch.

KFG

Re:Again?

[jeffy124]

yes, it did happen once. IIRC, he found (or was told of) a bug in filesystem permissions that allowed someone outside a uid/gid to gain access to a file.

Cox didnt publish details (ie - what the bug was or how to exploit it) because he believed it violated DMCA - as somewhere out there someone could be using UNIX file permissions as a "copy protection device," and the details to exploit it would be "circumventing a copy protection scheme." IIRC, Cox is not a US citizen, but he has to travel to the US a lot, and didnt want to lose that ability by publishing the exploit.

These stories (Cox's above and this current issue) are perfect examples of things to send over to that committee collecting comments on the DMCA. Here are software authors who are scared to publish vulnerability details about their own products!

Re:Again?

[Cramer]

Gee, Alan Cox being a melodramatic ass? The horror. (He's British; it's his birth right.)

Would all you chicken little's please line up in a tight little column so I don't have to use any more bullets than necessary. (they aren't free, after all.)

Nowhere in the DMCA am I prohibited from circumventing my own copy protection measures ("devices"), telling people how to get around my copy protection measures, providing and even selling for a profit means to circumvent my own copy protection measures on my own copyrighted stuffs.

Next your going to tell me "breaking and entering" are violations of the DMCA. I've circumvented your access controls -- that being the locks on your doors -- and gained unauthorized access to copyrighted materials.

Re:Again?

[Ian Wolf]

Alan Cox didn't write the code that he learned the exploit to. Furthermore, Red Hat did not write the kernel, thus it is not their own code. The parent post merely chose the wrong words to make his point.

Re:Again?

[frleong]

These stories (Cox's above and this current issue) are perfect examples of things to send over to that committee collecting comments on the DMCA. Here are software authors who are scared to publish vulnerability details about their own products!

Now I got it. Microsoft consistently refuses to disclose vulnerability details about its own products because many people are IIS and other secure and high-quality MS products as a "copy protection device"!

Re:Again?

[sg_oneill]

Bing! Lose a point kiddo.
Does allan cox actually own the rights to the linux code? At most Linus may. Remember Skylarov got his arse ripped DESPITE adobe actually objecting.
Allan Cox does, and hes probly had advice on this, face DMCA busting if he explains the 'sploit.
THATS why everyones up in arms about the DMCA , because it's fuckin' ludicrous.
And he can get deported for it too.
And if you cross your eyes the right way, yeah a slim-jim might just be a circumvention device too. (Break into car, steal document , break DCMA). It's verry silly. Oh and dude, if someone is using your method on there data, I fully recon' that DMCA + implied contract with customer to rely on your protection on their data means that your haxor technique breaks THEIR data. You still go to jail. (I wonder if CHMOD & CHOWN are circumvention devices).
This has gotten outa hand.

Re:Again?

[frankthechicken]

Wasn't there some issue with not being able to patch the DMCA for similar reasons?

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...face DMCA busting if he explains the 'sploit."

Surprisingly, you could have used exactly the same number of characters to spell exploit correctly.

Re:Again?

[Cramer]

To be accurate, Skylarov was arrested after Adobe called in the FBI. Adobe later changed their position after people became pissed at their actions.

Re:Again?

[RickHunter]

Not only that, but I believe Cox was advised by a lawyer that publishing anything about the exploit would be persecutable under the DMCA. A lot of people here on Slashdot called him paranoid, but I seem to remember that he made it clear that it wasn't his opinion, it was his lawyer's.

Re:Again?

[Alsee]

These stories (Cox's above and this current issue) are perfect examples of things to send over to that committee collecting comments on the DMCA.

I think you are reffering to the Library of Congress's DMCA review every three years? That committee would completely dissmiss it. They operate *within* the DMCA and have very narrow limits on what they will even look at. Dealing with them is a total waste of time.

-

Re:Again?

[vsavatar]

Yes, you are correct, this story is similar to the changelog story from awhile back. I already know I'm not going to become very popular here saying this, but since I'm not a karma whore I could care less. Alan Cox is a coward. The fact that this information is not posted publically is a pure act of cowardice. First of all, this information has nothing to do with the DMCA and would not even stand a chance of holding up in a court if charges were brought against Alan especially if he's tried by a jury of his peers. Second, if, by some weird ass twist of fate, it did stand in a jury trial it would certainly be thrown out either by the appeals court or the supreme court which could result in parts of the DMCA becoming invalidated and thus liberating us from at least part of its tyranny.

Alan needs to turn over kernel development to someone with more balls than he has. I've thrown myself in front of the cannon several times in an attempt to get the DMCA overturned, but no one has fired it yet. I'm going to throw myself in front of it again by posting the secret text on my webserver located right here. Alan has no right to call himself a leader in any sense for as long as he refuses to do something to change what he knows is wrong. Any man who knowingly allows an unjust act to occur(the imprisonment of a fellow programmer), does nothing to change it, and hides in fear of it, has no right to call himself a man, much less a leader.

I hope you're reading this Alan because I know you read these articles on a regular basis and yes, I am attacking your values and principles. Perhaps it's time to reevaluate them because you sir, are a coward who will allow injustice to continue when you are one of the few people who has enough public acknowledgement to actually have the ability to make a difference, whereas I, a lowly network engineer with no fame or notoriety, am willing to put my personal freedom on the line to make that difference.

Re:Again?

[boots@work]

Regardless of the chance of conviction, perhaps Alan has better things to do than put himself through the stress, risk and expense of a criminal trial? The Sklyarov trial hardly inspires confidence in the US "justice" system.

Alan needs to turn over kernel development to someone with more balls than he has.

I don't see anyone stopping you from creating a fork... If you think your enormous testicles make you better qualified, please go ahead.

Re:Again?

[sg_oneill]

...face DMCA busting if he explains the 'sploit."

Surprisingly, you could have used exactly the same number of characters to spell exploit correctly.

Or I could of spelt "Petty" with even less letters. SHeesh.

Land of the free...

[loply]

But sound doesnt travel in the land. Nor does... electricity, radio waves, or, come to think of it anything. Jeez, what a rip.

Re:Land of the free...

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy!

Re:Land of the free...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something must be done

About vengence, a badge and a gun

'cos I'll rip the mic, rip the stage, rip the system,

I was born to rage rgainst 'em

Re:Land of the free...

[drxenos]

Sound does travel in the land, and a lot further than in the air.

I'd comment, but

[jcknox]

I would comment on the stuff posted on theFreeWorld.net, but after reading their disclaimer, I was afraid to continue in the site.

Repeat after me:

I will NOT vote for anyone that voted for DMCA.

Re:I'd comment, but

[rmadmin]

I'd agree. I'd really like to know what the problem is. And where the DMCA has any damn right to tell me I can't read it. I cannot fathom what could be in that stupid text that would violate the DMCA. Anyway. Since this is an explination of the changes made to the software that I run, that I risk my data on, I think I have the right to that text. And if the goverment disagrees, then I'll take my ass and my money, and my vote over seas.

Re:I'd comment, but

[Flakeloaf]

I will NOT vote for anyone that voted for DMCA

Awww! But I really had my heart set on voting for Hillary Rosen again this...um... wait a minute...

Re:I'd comment, but

[wagemonkey]

You may be allowed to read it, but the point is the posters don't want to be prosecuted for publishing it.
The Reg had a neat explanation of this, a lot of people outside the US don't want to get arrested if they set foot on US soil because they published something on a web site hosted in another country that violates the DMCA.

Re:I'd comment, but

[Bowdie]

>Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?

I reckon you are yes.

Re:I'd comment, but

[DustMagnet]

It's a subtle point, but it's not the DMCA that says you can't read it. It's the author who says you can't read it. The DMCA says he can't tell you. You don't violate the DMCA by reading it; you violate the author's copyright. This kind of difference is important in matters of law.

Re:I'd comment, but

[timlyg]

start packing

Re:I'd comment, but

[Alsee]

And if the goverment disagrees, then I'll take my ass and my money, and my vote over seas.

If the government dissagrees you're free to do exactly that. Except your ass wont arrive overseas for at least five years and your money will be a half million less.

-

Re:I'd comment, but

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You don't violate the DMCA by reading it; you violate the author's copyright.

No, the author has no right to stop me from reading something that he's published; all he can do is dictate who may distribute copies. Before anybody asks, the copying required to view the page doesn't count, as it is required to use the page normally

Re:I'd comment, but

[1lus10n]

you are both missing the point. not to mention the actual context of the law.

if company A has a security flaw in their product and someone discovers the flaw it is against the law for that person to tell how he got through or around any kind of security (or any copyrighted material period). and in case you missed it this is a SECURITY PATCH! meaning that if alan cox or whomever explained this in public they can be prosecuted under the DMCA. weather the owner of the copyrighted/patched material wants him to be or not. if you want more info on the blatant stupidity of the DMCA go to google and look up dimitry skylarov (sp?) he was prosecuted under the DMCA despite the (albeit late) protests of people, and the company that owns the copyrighted software (adobe in this case). this was a "justice department" call. (this ranks up their with not punishing microsoft, if not higher.)

Re:I'd comment, but

[HiThere]

Do you seriously believe that Adobe really asked the Feds to drop the charges??? After setting them on him in the first place??

Adobe was just playing C.Y.A. They never came out and publicly requested that the prosecution be halted. They didn't file a friend of the court brief asking that the prosecution not be pursued.

Adobe is a clear villian. Anyone who does business with them has no business considering themselves to be moral.

Re:I'd comment, but

[jbrownc1]

I think it's an interesting twist. The US government can continue to trumpet the values of freedom of speech, pocket the lavish campaign contributions of Hollywood and the RIAA, and force other countries to do the dirty work of censoring the citizenry of the US. Hell, Karl Rove couldn't have thought this one through! It's got more twists than a Tom Clancy novel!

Re:I'd comment, but

[MSG]

Despite the +5 Insightful rating, this post is completely wrong. The problem, as it was acturately described originally in the story, is that the patch fixes a problem that could be used to bypass "digital security - i.e. computer security".

The DMCA made it illegal to discuss techniques that allowed users to bypass digital security, and because of the broad wording of the bill, it may be illegal to discuss such vulnerabilities at all. In this case, it is not because the author in question says you can't read the description of the problem; the DMCA says that he can't tell you what the problem is because you might then use that information to bypass security restrictions.

Re:I'd comment, but

[1lus10n]

yeah umm i have one thing to say to that

Says Different

check your sources bud.

Re:I'd comment, but

[Fat Casper]

Adobe is a clear villian. Anyone who does business with them has no business considering themselves to be moral.

I would think that the Skylarov case would be the ultimate example of what is wrong with the DMCA and the DOJ in general. Adobe did everyone (except Skylarov himself) a huge favor by starting this mess. Forget about hypotheticals, drop the "this could become illegal"s. We've got a case that shows just how wrong this law is.

Refusing to grant a visa is the best way the feds have to avoid committing an atrocity here. He'll be convicted in absentia, but they'll never ask for extradition- you can't request extradition for someone that you denied entry to.

Washington gets their conviction without actually having to jail him- just some bureaucratic snafu over at State, you know. The DMCA is validated (?) by the conviction. Washington is spared the embarassment of jailing him, and we still have this travesty to point to.

Everyone wins except Skylarov, and he gets to stop losing. The State Dept. turned him down for a visa, and he doesn't have to apply for another. He can't come to the US again, but I'd imagine he isn't so hot on that idea anyway.

Re:I'd comment, but

[tpv]

I believe the parent to your post is slightly incorrect.

For those of you who are under US jurisdiction:

• The authors aren't allowed to tell you the about the security holes, because of the DMCA. If they did tell you, they could be arrested if they ever enter the US.
• You aren't allowed to read the information, because it is protected by a licence agreement, that you cannot accept. If you click the "accept" button, then you assert that you are not under US jurisdiction. If that is a lie, then you are making a false statement, and could be charged with some fraud related act.
• I can't give you a copy of the text because it is protected by copyright. (And if I did I would also be violating the DMCA)

Re:I'd comment, but

[Eivind]

The problem is this:

The DMCA forbids publishing information on how to bypass an "effective access-control mechanism"

The Linux-kernel and other software includes many features which restrict or regulate access

Bugs in the kernel can frequently be exploited to bypass the access-controls

Thus Publishing information on the bugs can easily be seen as equivalent to publishing information on how to bypass the access-restrictions

For this, you could face prison up to 5 years, and/or fines of up to $50.000.

Yes it's absurd. Yes it's stupid. Yes the law should be repealed tomorrow. Go do something about it!

Re:I'd comment, but

[HiThere]

Yeah, it says different. But from what I read of other published sources at the time (well, and since, but it was rarely mentioned), what happened was that Adobe withdrew from supporting the feds. This is quite different from even attempting to make up for their original misdeed.

"Protestors claim victory" is quite likely true. This is far different from "Protestors achieve victory".

But I have never seen it asserted that Adobe requested, even pro forma, that the charges be dropped.

I tried to investigate this further, but many of the links on the story that you posted have expired.

Re:I'd comment, but

[1lus10n]

no biggie

adobe may have turned around a whispered over their shoulder to the feds "charge him anyway" for all we know.

Re:I'd comment, but

[ninewands]

Quoth the poster:

Refusing to grant a visa is the best way the feds have to avoid committing an atrocity here. He'll be convicted in absentia, but they'll never ask for extradition- you can't request extradition for someone that you denied entry to.

You cannot be convicted in absentia in the United States. Proceedings in absentia violate the Fifth Amendment's guaranty of "due process of law" and the Sixth Amendment's guaranty of the right to confront the witnesses against you.

Denying an entry visa to Dmitri is a tactic by the DOJ to prevent the case from going to trial so that the constitutionality of the DMCA and their attempt to apply it outside the boundaries of the U.S. never gets challenged in the one place that counts, a court of law.

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird, I thought Linux was for the people. Fight The Power!

It happened on CLINTON's watch!

[Anonymous Coward]

At least blame Bush for HIS mistakes.

Re:It happened on CLINTON's watch!

[sqlrob]

One Nation Under God - Congress is voting to make that part of the pledge a law, also under Bush's watch.

And every single congress critter (95/100 of the Senate IIRC) that voted for it should be tossed out of office on their ass for violating their oath. How is this upholding the Constitution?

Re:It happened on CLINTON's watch!

[dirty]

That already is a law. IIRC the pledge of alegiance is defined in US law, hence why there was a huge stink over the church and state issues. I could be talking out of my back side though.

Re:It happened on CLINTON's watch!

[liposuction]

Amen. Either that, or require people to learn some economics. Economics or the difference between the economy and the bleedin' stock market.

Re:One day...

[Belisarivs]

Um, whose name is at the bottom of the DMCA? I'm pretty sure it's not Bush's. Want a high comment score on Slashdot? Bash Bush.

Sound familiar?

[shftleft]

To quote the article:

...just as ridiculous as the idea that the US authorities are going to start flying non-US citizens to Cuba to shoot them...

Isn't this almost what we are doing to supposed Taliban and Al Qaeda "war prisoners". Not so far off...

Re:Sound familiar?

[larien]

I think that was the idea; show the extremes that the US is going to at the moment.

Re:Sound familiar?

[smack.addict]

No, it is not. We are detaining them and treating them in accordance with the rules governing prisoners of war. The only thing we are not doing is calling them prisoners of war. We are not shooting them or anything else.

Furthermore, they are members of an enemy force. Comparing that to people talking about computer patches is absurd.

Re:Sound familiar?

[NixterAg]

Isn't this almost what we are doing to supposed Taliban and Al Qaeda "war prisoners". Not so far off...

Yeah, except for the whole
insignificant "shooting" part.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Hard_Code]

We do that a lot. We let our less "civilized" allies, who have no qualms with torture, handle our suspects. Why is this surprising?

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine with me. I want all those bastards dead. Snipers too. Oh, and toss in those assholes that bombed Bali.

Re:Sound familiar?

[GMontag]

Interesting? More like Offtopic.

1. The quote is well over the top.

2. "not far off"? If our intent were to shoot POWs in Cuba, we sure are being slow about it. They are not even being mistreated!

3. You are slamming one of the FEW nations that follows the Laws of War and Peace, to include prosicuting our own military people that violate said laws.

I take back the Offtopic comment, you are just a troll.

Re:Sound familiar?

[lovebyte]

Could someone moderate the parent as Funny instead of Insightful?

Re:Sound familiar?

[boogy nightmare]

'Furthermore, they are members of an enemy force'

Considering that they are being held with no reason, trial or lawyer present, the fact that nothing has been proven then unfortunantly this statement is terribly inaccurate (like my spelling) Simply becuase they are not given POW status means that they are being held for no reason other than paranoia. It woiuld be like putting you in a lock up for 2 years in case you had something to do with drinking and looking at a car.

Remember you are supposidly a free country with 'apparent' freedom of speech, religion or beleif, becuase it is suddenly a bad thing to be against 'mainstream America' those rights are consistanly forgotten.

Akira

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

2. "not far off"? If our intent were to shoot POWs in Cuba, we sure are being slow about it. They are not even being mistreated!

Not now maybe after the international outcry at keeping foreign national in cages with no due process. As another poster said habeus corpus seems to have gone from the US legal system.
If some redneck traffic cop decides you're a terrorist for running a stop light and you get shipped off to Cuba, well tough.

3. You are slamming one of the FEW nations that follows the Laws of War and Peace, to include prosicuting (sic) our own military people that violate said laws.

Shame about the international criminal court 'though.
And didn't the US administration say that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the detainees as they aren't members of a recognised army or some such? They're POWs for some cases and not for others. Basically they're detained at the whim of the US Government.

Re:Sound familiar?

[aengblom]

with the rules governing prisoners of war

No. No we are not.

Whether you agree with the "enemy combatent" theory or not, the prisoners do not have POW status or rights.

There is a list of some of the requirements here


Furthermore, they are members of an enemy force. Comparing that to people talking about computer patches is absurd.

Yes, quite.

Re:Sound familiar?

[larien]

Hrm, quite a number of people would disagree with your views that they are not being mistreated. There conditions are hardly comfortable. You're also "being slow about" giving them any kind of trial or legal representation. Also, as others have pointed out, the US is very keen not to call them POWs as that would give them rights which they are determined not to allow. What I would ask is what kind of noises would be coming out of the US if American citizens were being held in similar conditions, with no trial in a middle east country? They should, very rightly, be outraged.

As for "one of the FEW nations that follows the Laws of War and Peace", I'd like to point out that the US has demanded (and unfortunately, gotten) concessions that no US military personnel can be tried for war crimes on UN missions. This effectively gives US soldiers carte blanche to rape, pillage and burn in a manner that would make the atrocities in the Balkans seems like a Sunday School picnic with no chance of war crimes charges ever being laid. They may get some kind of court martial or charges laid in the US court or they may not. There would be no recourse for an aggrieved party in the Internation Courts.

The more I hear about the US in recent times, the more I despair about a nation that claims to be the home of Democracy. I have my own rant about another such incident, which you're free to read.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard they were being kept in their underwear in open sided, exposed to the elements, buildings, which is against the Geneva convention. Oh, and they are being kept handcuffed and blindfolded at all times, also against the convention. But this is the big thing: they aren't prisoners of war. They were fighting in a civil war within the boundaries of Afghanistan.

Let me give you an analogy.. if civil war broke out between two USA states how would you like it if France backed one state, captured fighters from the other state and took them back to Europe, ignoring the Geneva convention on treatment of prisoners, calling them "enemies" but not prisoners of war, but at the same time they aren't citizens so they have no right to judicial process. I bet you'd be tying big yellow ribbony bows around your trees as fast as you can just to get those good ol' boys back, huh?

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

not having pow status, and being trated with POW status are mutualy exclusive.

we ARE treating them along the guidlines set forth for POWs, however, it is by choice becasue they do not HAVE POW status.

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

they get around that however.....they are on Cuban soil, not US soil.

just like how we turn over the top al-quaeda dudes to Egyptian intelegence...those guys use tourture to get information...all we do is hand there head of intelegence a list of questions, and they come back a week latter to tell us what he said.

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

that was camp X-Ray.....

X-Ray was build to house them while camp delta was being built...which has enclosed cells and all the other nicetise of a prison.....BTW...they were in orange jump suits, not underware.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one person sent to Cuba from the US.

The only people held prisoner in Cuba, by the US, were captured overseas.

If you want to hate America at least use facts.

The "Geneva Conventions" DO apply and we have said they apply. There are provisions for illegal combatants, such as John Walker as well as for people not sponsored by a recognized government, like the Al Queda Network.

Again, try getting your facts straight instead of parroting the know-nothing professional protestors.

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

1) they are being treated fine...the international red cross says so.

2) they have no rights under our system as they are housed on forgin soil and have never toutched our shores...there is a few court rulings on that one

3) yes, US troops in the past were exempt from war crimes during UN missions, however, they were not exempt from US Millitary law, and Officers tend to realy take that crap seriously, especialy when we are not in a knock down drag out fight.

and I do not know what the effect of being part of the world court will do, but I assume it will mean we will no longer have exemtions (Bush anounced we would sign the treaty before he spoke about Iraq at the UN)

Re:Sound familiar?

[rseuhs]

Furthermore, they are members of an enemy force. Comparing that to people talking about computer patches is absurd.

Indeed it is.

What is your point again?

Your point was that no absurd things ever happened in the USA and never, never will, right?

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

you are to uninformed to be speaking pal.

Bush anounced that we WOULD be joining the international criminal court when he made his speach about Iraq at the UN...try watching presidential speaches...you might not like the guy, but that does not mean you should ignore what he says as it might just enlighten you to some facts about what the US IS doing.

Re:Sound familiar?

[GMontag]

Hrm, quite a number of people would disagree with your views that they are not being mistreated.

Judging from the comments, that is fine with me. No C programmer cares if I disagree with them because I know nothing of the C language. At least I refrain from spreading falsehoods based on my own ignorance of C programming.

There conditions are hardly comfortable. You're also "being slow about" giving them any kind of trial or legal representation. Also, as others have pointed out, the US is very keen not to call them POWs as that would give them rights which they are determined not to allow. What I would ask is what kind of noises would be coming out of the US if American citizens were being held in similar conditions, with no trial in a middle east country? They should, very rightly, be outraged.

Try getting their status straight and then realize that we are treating them properly. They are not under arrest, they are combatant detainees. We can hold them as long as hostilities persist. Again, try learning something of this before declairing things "illegal" that are well within the bounds of the Laws of War.

As for "one of the FEW nations that follows the Laws of War and Peace", I'd like to point out that the US has demanded (and unfortunately, gotten) concessions that no US military personnel can be tried for war crimes on UN missions.

Incorrect again. We are not bound by that "International Kangaroo Court", we are still bound by the Laws of War and our military is still bound by the UCMJ (look that up too).

This effectively gives US soldiers carte blanche to rape, pillage and burn in a manner that would make the atrocities in the Balkans seems like a Sunday School picnic with no chance of war crimes charges ever being laid. They may get some kind of court martial or charges laid in the US court or they may not. There would be no recourse for an aggrieved party in the Internation Courts.

Self contradicting while using wholly inaccurate assertions is bad form.

As mentioned above they are covered by the UCMJ. All acts you mentioned are violations under the UCMJ that carry quite severe punishments. We have a history of actually prosecuting our own people under the UCMJ to the fullest extent. The "some kind of court[sic] martial or charges laid in the US court" is, in fact, a US Military court and is not quite the same as a civilian court. Hardly what you state or infer. However, the defendants do get lawyers taken from the same pool as the prosicution. Unless you are against the accused having a right to ADIQUATE counsel then perhaps you can bark up another tree before you join your brothers and sisters in Bali.

The more I hear about the US in recent times, the more I despair about a nation that claims to be the home of Democracy.

Republic.

I have my own rant [riddoch.org] about another such incident, which you're free to read.

I have read quite enough from you. Please excuse me if I skip it.

Re:Sound familiar?

[liposuction]

First off. The US isn't a democracy. You only show your blind stupidity by thinking that it is.

Second. We are the only country that kicks the crap out of evil doers, and then REBUILDS THEIR COUNTRY FOR THE PEOPLE THERE AT OUR EXPENSE.

God you people that pick on the US make me sick. Where the hell do you get off picking on the country that gives more money to poor nations around the globe, then all the others COMBINED??

Why the hell should US solders be bound by a lame ass global court? 100% of our solders would rather go AWOL then fight with a blue helmet on, taking orders from some stupid asshat general that doesn't know one goddamn thing about fighting or strategy. Don't believe me? Try asking them.

I laugh at the fact that people like you sit and knock the US about flaws that every imperfect nation has. Yet, we have the stongest, smartest economy in the world. We have the deadliest millitary in the world. I sure don't see any of the thousands of women lined up for school in Afghanistan complaining about the current US president. I sure don't see the people in Iraq, the family members of the ones Saddam POURED ASPHAULT over, complaining that who you call "Dubya" is a war-monger.

Learn some history. Learn some current affairs. Learn something before you jump on the stupid "tripe-eaters" bandwagon.

Asshat.

Re:Sound familiar?

[larien]

OK, then, these "combat detainees" will presumably be released once hostilities have ended? Is any fighting actually still going on in Afghanistan? The US hasn't given any clear idea of what it plans to do with its prisoners/hostages/detainees in the long term. Until it does, I'm not going to give any benefit of the doubt to them. Also, I never stated what they were doing was illegal, but that doesn't mean to say I have to like their actions.

"Incorrect Again". Hrm, the BBC disagrees. "The United Nations Security Council has voted unanimously to exempt US peacekeepers from prosecution by the new war crimes court".

As for the UCMJ, yes, OK, soldiers could be tried under that. However, if an order comes from on high (e.g. a general, or even the president), is a trial really going to happen? I guess the examples of rape & pillage were bad, but what about orders to assassinate someone? Or napalm a village (not that the US has ever done that before...)?

Republic/Democracy? Whatever. The fact is that the US tends to like to believe it's the home of democracy.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

2) they have no rights under our system as they are housed on forgin soil and have never toutched our shores...there is a few court rulings on that one

POWs do have rights under this insignifcant treaty called the Geneva Convention. Ever heard of that? Or - is the US above that? Cool! That means you also get to use nice stuff like dumdum bullets!

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

As mentioned above they are covered by the UCMJ. All acts you mentioned are violations under the UCMJ that carry quite severe punishments. We have a history of actually prosecuting our own people under the UCMJ to the fullest extent.

Fullest extent? My Lai ring a bell? 500 civilians dead. Lt. Calley gets into court, but in the end serves 3 years of house arrest...

Re:Sound familiar?

[liposuction]

Right on!

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the hell do you get off picking on the country that gives more money to poor nations around the globe, then all the others COMBINED??

I've heard of national pride but this statement is bullshit. The US media does a lot of flag waving, so I can understand where you might pick up this impression. Or can you can prove it?

Re:Sound familiar?

[mvdwege]

Again, try learning something of this before declairing things "illegal" that are well within the bounds of the Laws of War.

Somehow I seem to have missed a Declaration of War by the U.S. Congress. Therefore the U.S. can not hold someone as an enemy combatant under the laws of war, because the U.S. is officially not at war.

Since according to international treaties and the U.S. Constitution the U.S. government has no other way to hold someone prisoner without a specific accusation of a crime, the U.S. is violating fundamental human rights at the moment.

Therefore the people imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay are imprisoned illegally, all according to international human rights treaties, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution.

Mart

Re:Sound familiar?

[Krokus]

"Furthermore, they are members of an enemy force. Comparing that to people talking about computer patches is absurd."

Doesn't Microsoft consider its users members of an enemy force? Oh, hey, and the RIAA... and the MPAA, too...

Re:Sound familiar?

[liposuction]

The US media is more anti-US than any of you ever could be.

I read. It's a skill that's helped me along with my "illusion". If you want proof, read facts. Not media distortion. Not CNN. Not Foxnews. Not BBC. Start with the US Library of Congress.

http://www.loc.gov/

Re:Sound familiar?

[liposuction]

Ha ha. NO where in the the US constitution does it say that the US has to have a Declaration of War to hold anyone an enemy combatant under the laws of war.

Try finding it.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I seem to have missed a Declaration of War by the U.S. Congress. Therefore the U.S. can not hold someone as an enemy combatant under the laws of war, because the U.S. is officially not at war.

War was brought to the US. Perhaps you have missed the events of the past 10 years.

You also missed that the President does not need a declairation of war from anybody to deploy troops. Again, try learning something about the topic at hand before spouting off. Thomas Jefferson had no such declairation of war when he sent the US Marines to Tripoli either and I *think* he knew something about the Constitution. George Washington actually lead troops, as President, during the Whiskey Rebellion, with no declairation of war either. So, please, try reading up on this stuff instead of blindly following your Berkley oracles of misinformation.

Since according to international treaties and the U.S. Constitution the U.S. government has no other way to hold someone prisoner without a specific accusation of a crime, the U.S. is violating fundamental human rights at the moment.

Incorrect and this has already been covered in other posts of mine (GMontag) in this thread.

Therefore the people imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay are imprisoned illegally, all according to international human rights treaties, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution.

Excuse me, but your stringing a bunch of false premeses together only leads to a false conclusion, even if the conclusion is right by accident, and yours is not, it is still false.

Now, run back to your protest or sit in or whatever you do besides reading and learning.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not shooting them or anything else.

Pardon me, but how the fuck would you know? Even lawyers representing these people can't get the government to tell them why they're being held. And many of them aren't even being acknowledged for "national security" reasons. If the military shot a few dozen, who would ever know?

Keep your nationalist ferver to yourself; this is a thinking man's board.

Re:Sound familiar?

[mickwd]

Have you really thought about what your saying for more than 5 seconds ?

Suppose the USA goes to war with Iraq. Suppose americans are taken prisoner on their way to Iraq, and imprisoned somewhere in the middle east, without any legal representation, or hope of release.

1) Will it be OK if the internation red crescent (yes there is such a thing - it's a muslim organisation) says they're being treated OK ?

2) Is it OK if those americans have no rights under the Iraqi system, as they are housed on foreign soil, and have never touched its shores ?

3) Is it OK if Iraqi troops are exempt from war crimes during the US/Iraqi war, because they're trying to defend their country against a foreign aggressor ? After all, Saddam Hussein takes it very seriously when his soldiers don't follow his rules.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is any fighting actually still going on in Afghanistan?

Nice troll!

Well, YES the US is STILL fighting there, try opening a newspaper or watching ANY news outlet. At least the "mainstream" outlets. I am sure the news you read havs the US carpet bombing and leaving or whatever. Bill Ayres is NOT a journalist and neither is Noam Chomsky. There is action in Afghanistan almost daily along with active airbases, troops, etc.

Obviously you do not know anything about what is legal or illegal in warfare or international law, nor are you familiar with the current events you choose to comment about.

Re:Sound familiar?

[grayantimatter]

Keep your nationalist ferver to yourself; this is a thinking man's board.

Since when did mindless conspiracy babbling BS constitute thinking?

Oh, thats right. Never. Except in the land of some mindless slashdotter...

Re:Sound familiar?

[mvdwege]

War was brought to the US. Perhaps you have missed the events of the past 10 years.

Yet still the U.S. did not react with a reciprocal Declaration of War. Therefore under international law the U.S. is not at war.

Any unilateral actions by the U.S. President are just that, unilateral actions not sanctioned by international laws and treaties. That is why the U.S. is resented by the world at large.

My conclusions are only false if you want to use the viewpoints of the current U.S. administration as canon. The same administration that has declared unilateralism as its policy from the election campaign on forward.

Lets recap:

1. In order to hold someone as an enemy combatant a state of war must exist according to international treaties (which the U.S. signed and ratified B.T.W.)
2. The only way the U.S. can be in a state of war is by a Declaration of War.
3. According to the U.S. Constitution, the only one with the power to issue such a Declaration is the U.S. Congress.

So, notwithstanding the power of the President to deploy troops, the U.S. is not at war, and therefore the defense that normal criminal proceedings are not necessary against anyone the Administration designates an enemy combatant is bogus. Anyone trying to defend that policy knows nothing of international law and is defending an unacceptable breach of human rights.

As an aside, I have nothing to do with Berkeley (sic), as I am not an American. Your ad hominem attacks serve no purpose except to show you as a jingoistic troll.

Wake up and smell the coffee: your own administration has declared that unilateralism is to be the foreign policy. In common English: "Screw the world and what it thinks, screw international law and the treaties we signed, we do whatever we damn well please."

Mart

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some of the conditions from the article and here are some of the conditions that are probably or most certainly broken:

- Article 21: Internment in camp allowed; Close confinement prohibited

- Article 22: Internment in penitentiaries prohibited; Every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness required

- Article 25: Condition of quarters must be as favorable for POWs as for the forces of the Detaining Power; Accommodations for habits and customs of POWs required; Protection from dampness, adequate heat and lighting required

There's no way US soldiers have the same quarters as the "unlawful combatants".

- Article 70: Prisoners must be allowed to write to family, others

Hello! These prisoners do not the same rights given to POWs according to the Geneva Convention. There have been many stories about family members having no contact from relatives in the camps.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, even though US soldiers abroad aren't held accountable by the International Court, they are still responsible to the US justice system. If a soldier comitted war-crimes, he/she would probably be court-mashalled, as long as his/her war-crimes weren't consistent with US policy at the time.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Rev Fulton O Dollar]

Blatantly off-topic, but it needed saying:

Anyone trying to defend that policy knows nothing of international law and is defending an unacceptable breach of human rights.

So we should just let them go on their merry way then. What about the human rights of the 3000 citizens, both American and non-American, in the World Trade Center? How about the human rights of those 150 partygoers in Bali?

What of the human rights of the potential victims should we let these Al Qaeda and Taliban jokers go free?

Re:Sound familiar?

[edbarrett]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1763307. stm

Particularly the last quote. They're not prisoners of war, so we don't *have* to follow the Geneva convention. We are, at the moment though.

Re:Sound familiar?

[endoboy]

what he announced was that we'd join the international court--as long as we could ignore its jurisdictional authority....

The state department is currently going around the world strong-arming countries into agreeing not to deliver US citizens into the evil clutches of the court.

US policy---they may be war criminals, but they're OUR war criminals

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Incorrect Again". Hrm, the BBC disagrees [bbc.co.uk]. "The United Nations Security Council has voted unanimously to exempt US peacekeepers from prosecution by the new war crimes court".

1. Who cares what the BBC thinks.

2. The "new war crimes court" is obviously what the Kangaroo Court refrence is about.

3. From what you have posted, the UN Security Councel, to include China and France, voted unanimously for the exemption, this it does not apply, thus it is not an issue.

4. Before you try to accuse the US of strong-arming the Security Council, take a look at the other votes by that body that have gone against the US or would have gone against US interest without a US veto.

Do you have ANYTHING relevant for this discussion?

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

your right, in camp delta, the prisoners have BETTER living quarters that the soldures.....

I have heard a few soldures who are back from Camp delta complain about just such issues.

BTW, Camp delta conformes to 21 and 22, 25 has NEVER been broken except perhaps while they were being procesed in the begining.

right now, 70 is being borkern, however, that would be why they are illegal combatants and not POWs.

the fact is that they are phisicly and mentaly treated no worse than a POW. writing home is the only thng they cannot do and it is sufficient enought as to have queld critics in the UN and the International Red Cross

Re:Sound familiar?

[Ian Wolf]

Gitmo is a U.S. Naval Installation and is in fact U.S. soil.

Think about it. Do you think Fidel would let us set up a Navy base on what was still considered Cuban soil?

Re:Sound familiar?

[mvdwege]

Strawman argument.

Nowhere did I say that terrorists should not be fought. All I want is that a government that is founded on certain principles abide by these principles when fighting terrorists.

Your post didn't need saying. It has nothing to do with my argument.

Mart

Re:Sound familiar?

[BiterAtmonk]

You think all those Afghanis we have in the detention camps bombed the World Trade Center? You think most of them even knew about it? If you lived in a country thats a hundred years, or maybe more like 300 years, behind America, would you even comprehend planes flying into skyscrapers? Those fighters were just defending their leaders... frankly i doubt that they knew anything about America that was the truth. Probably just got filled up with propaganda. Instead of torturing those people, shouldn't we be going after the serious offenders? well, we are, but you know what i mean. There's no reason to treat afghani fighters like shit... most of them didn't know what they were even upholding.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

There weren't an Afgani's citizens on the plane.
Most of them were Saudi's. Why didn't we bomb Saudi
Arabia? Because we attacked Afganastan in order
to promote Bush's personal business interests.
He lied when he said that that the terrorists were
from Afganastan. He'd been wanting to build a pipeline
through there for years. He's good friends with Saudis (terrorists)
and his father funded Bin Laudin. The Afganis had
no way of attacking the US so the attack was naked agression much
like the 911 attack. All the 911 attackers died in that attack, if
you didn't see it on TV. All those who think that Bush has their
best interests in mind should show their patriotism and
go over to Iraq on the front lines. Have a nice trip, suckers. :)

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

1) Yes it would be.

2) irrelivent as no prisoner in Iraq has rights even close to par with the US so there would be no need to house them off shore of Iraq on another nation's soil. (yes I dissagree with the Policies over the prisoners and there rights to trial) but the plane fact is that the US courts have no Jurisdiction and can therefore not do anything about it.

3) I did not say it was OK, all I said was that US troops were subject to a strict code of conduct that is enforced very seriously. I also included the fact that US troops would not be excluded in the future due to our signing the international criminal court treaty. not to mention that your logic is slightly flawed in that Iraqs Millitary laws do not conform to the geneva convention as ours do.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your recap is a list of nonsense, all of it false.

1. Point to the prohabition, in the US Constitution, to military action by the Commander in Chief unless the Congress allows said action.

2. Find ANYTHING you assert here and please post it.

3. Since I have done your homework for you, come back and apolodize for confusing the folks not as well read on these topics.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Yes. Since the International Red Crescent is just the Muslim version of the Red Cross, I trust them to give a truthful report.

2) Those prisoners wouldn't have any rights even if they were on Iraqi soil. There are reasons why Saddam is considered a bad guy, and not just because the US says he is.

3) Another bad point. US soldiers aren't exempt from war crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They are just exempt from being tried by the ICC, and only until sometime next year if I remember correctly.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. I respect that you see big media news for what it is: entertainment. This holds for most modern countries. The BBC isn't as bad as the others though, it's non-commercial but they still obviously have a desire for ratings. They don't have to worry about offending advertisers or "partners", which makes them the lessers of the evils in my mind.

But you still haven't cited any proof of your claim that the US gives more to needy countries than the rest of the world combined. It simply isn't true. Constant images on TV of bags of grain marked "US Aid" doesn't amount to much other than nationalistic propaganda. The rest of us don't make a big deal of it, and generally don't make foreign aid a media event.

PS I don't hate America, and neither do most people expressing anti-US sentiment. Remember, the world as a whole is to a certain degree also a large democracy of democracies ;-) Just because someone expresses a view different to yours doesn't mean that they are anti-US, it's free speach being expressed. Your government does leaves a lot to be desired, but there's far worse out there than them. But I do object to the "we're the best insert claim here attitude". Be proud of your country, true, but don't become so blinded that you cannot see things objectively.

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

you seem to be misreading my statement

1) they are not POWs and that has been decided internationaly already

2) NO RIGHTS UNDER OUR SYSTEM means NO RIGHTS UNDER OUR SYSTEM as they are not on US soil. they are subject to the geneva convention however which lays our guidlines for millitary courts and tribunals by which a member nation must makes its rules for the courts and tribunals.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, the BBC is the most respected source worldwide. You silly Americans think that your breakaway colony is a superpower.

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

got proof??

I listened to the speech and I heard the first part. I have to go see a doctor since acording to you, I suffer from narcalepsy as I totaly missed the second part.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, POW status is afforded to insignia marked, organized members of the opposing force, which should be given to all Taliban forces operating in the theatre of conflict. Spies and mercenaries are not afforded this protection.

Secondly, al-Qa'ida prisoners are not organized as a traditional army and more like a terrorist training cell, so they are not necessarily given POW status. However, the International Red Cross has some concerns about the difference between POWs and "unlawful combantants". I have no problem with this distinction, but the Geneva convention requires due treatment of POW status by a neutral international body.

1) they are being treated fine...the international red cross says so.

The Internation Red Cross visits with the detainees and does not report on the conditions or violations of POW status. This is why the Red Cross is allowed in to so many conflicts. The organization itself documents the status only. They made recommendations but would not given details of the conditions.

2) The "unlawful combatants" are not given the same treatment as POW.

a) Many stories indicate that families/countries have no contact with the "unlawful combatants". They must be allowed to write to families and others.

b) Close confinement or penitentary is not allowed. POWs must be provided the adequate food and living conditions afforded to members of the detaining force. This is clearly broken during the first couple of months Camp X-ray was in operation.

c) Due treatment in a military court is required. At the end of the conflict, POW must be returned to their countries. If they have broken international laws or laws of the detaining state at the time of capture, they can be extradited to required countries for civilian court or military tribunal. Many countries are complaining because they have no access to their citizens.

Re:Sound familiar?

[mvdwege]

You obviously didn't even take the time to actually read what I wrote, and you're too cowardly to even put your name to your own trolling.

Tell me why it is I who should have to apologise?

Mart

Re:Sound familiar?

[RealAlaskan]

This effectively gives US soldiers carte blanche to rape, pillage and burn ...

Actually, US soldiers have a fairly good reputation in this area. Most of the GIs behave more or less as they would at home.

Some years ago I met an old Chinese soldier who took me into his house, fed me dinner, and gave me gifts, all because I was American. He told me that American soldiers were the best disciplined and most reliable in the world. They followed orders even when no-one was looking! That, apparently, was as un-Chinese as you could get. Thirty years after observing this, he was still astonished.

Of course, this old fellow was comparing regular army soldiers to Chinese bandits (the KMT and the competition had common origins in organized crime). We shouldn't forget about the times that US soldiers have done wrong; My Lai is probably the most famous, and our soldiers have embarrased us on Guam several times recently. This kind of thing makes the news because it isn't normal, and the US military has been very determined about dealing harshly with the evildoers it finds in its ranks. If the Army sends you overseas and you rape a local girl, you're going to wish you had brought her home and done it where the US civilian courts could punish you.

... US has demanded ... concessions that no US military personnel can be tried for war crimes on UN missions.''

So, you want us to send our soldiers as mercenaries to wipe your behind for you, and then you expect us to turn our soldiers over to whatever butcher is running the world court this year? We are not amused. Don't forget, the UN is filled with nations that want to destroy us (and you, too, if you're in Europe).

... I despair about a nation that claims to be the home of Democracy.

You aren't despairing about us, then. Greece was the birthplace of democracy, but democracy is unstable, and never lasts long anywhere. The US has always been a republic. Insofar as we can avoid democracy, we have a chance to keep our freedoms.

... what kind of noises would be coming out of the US if American citizens were being held in similar conditions ...

Our State Department would do nothing of consequence. If it became a common practice to treat Americans thus in some country, the government would advise us not to travel there. If a US citizen abroad gets involved in a revolutionary group, or some sort of criminal activity, the US government generally turns its back on him. They didn't even take any effective action to deal with Iran during the hostage mess when Carter was president, and those guys were government employees!

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think all those Afghanis we have in the detention camps bombed the World Trade Center?

No, I think the people that bombed the WTC with airplanes died on impact.

You think most of them even knew about it?

No, and I do not see how this is relevant. I believe that they are in support of the organization that orchistrated the attack.

If you lived in a country thats a hundred years, or maybe more like 300 years, behind America, would you even comprehend planes flying into skyscrapers?

Umm, these are many of the guys responsible for getting that country 300 years behind the times and I fail to see how this matters either.

Those fighters were just defending their leaders... frankly i doubt that they knew anything about America that was the truth. Probably just got filled up with propaganda.

Yep, that is why they are detainees under the provisions of the "irregular combatants" provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Instead of torturing those people, shouldn't we be going after the serious offenders? well, we are, but you know what i mean.

Well, NO I do not know what you mean because there has been no evidence of prisoners enduring "torture" at all. "Just following orders" is no defense, but I am sure the Germans, Japanese and every American found guilty of a war crime would have loved you as a judge.

There's no reason to treat afghani fighters like shit... most of them didn't know what they were even upholding.

If they were being "treated like shit" I would be shouting bloody murder much louder than you. I have yet to see one credible report of this, nor any good rumours either.

Re:Sound familiar?

[GalionTheElf]

Ha Ha. What? Maybe things like this are covered by _international_ law, like the Geneva Convention and such...

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

the only problems that would be incured is if the taliban were still in power.

they are not, and we have a bunch of terrorists and taliban soldures from a nation that is still fighting to keep back the enemies. last I checked, there was no unconditional surrender by the taliban, they just ran.

also, unlawful combatents have no right to communicate to the out side world, and while camp x-ray was not conforming, camp delta is.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously didn't even take the time to actually read what I wrote, and you're too cowardly to even put your name to your own trolling.

Well, yes I did and I responded with FACTS. You post bullshit and call me a troll? You have no clue about the topic!

No country needs "permission" for acts of war and you have yet to show us where your assertions are a matter of law or policy.

I gave you the link for the Yale online copy of the Laws of War, so try doing some research.

Tell me why it is I who should have to apologise?

Looks like you are the one skipping the reading.

Skip the apology and just fuck off.

Hope you don't get your brains beaten in by an iron worker when you burn a US flag at ground zero.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read a history book. The _lease_ for the naval base was signed long before Castro's revolution. The terms of the lease state that Cuba can't kick the US out. He still gets the checks (for a paltry sum of ~$1000) but refuses to cash them.

He could always try to eject the US Navy by force, but he's smart enough to realize that the US response would make this a foolish proposition, especially now.

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

gitmo is a US navel base that is on cuban soil that the US governmnet bought before fidel's parents were even a glint in his grandparents eyes, however, Cuba still has eminent domain over it. the only thing keeping cuba from booting the US is that fact that it is owned by our millitary and would be suicide to attack the installation.

since cuba has eminent domian over the property, it is therefore NOT US soil.

Re:Sound familiar?

[mvdwege]

Assertions are not facts last time I looked.

Also the very clear fact that you are attacking me on something I specifically covered, shows that you did not read my posts.

Finally, that you resort to anonymous invective instead of reasonably debunking my allegedly wrong facts shows that it is in fact you who does not know what he is talking about.

Mart

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any unilateral actions by the U.S. President are just that, unilateral actions not sanctioned by international laws and treaties. That is why the U.S. is resented by the world at large.

Why... because the rest of the world is largely peopled by cocksure idiots who think the phrase "declaration of war" has some legal meaning?

Get this through your head, friend. The idea of a "declaration of war" is meaningless. During the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan-- surely the most infamous sneak attack in history-- the United States did not have a declaration of war on file at the National Archives. Does this mean that the US was not at war? Of course not.

War is a state of armed conflict. Whenever a state of armed conflict arises, that's war. You don't need to declare it to make things nice and legal. It doesn't work that way.

2. The only way the U.S. can be in a state of war is by a Declaration of War.

You made that up. Stop making this up and pretending they're facts. It's making you look like an idiot.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Craig Davison]

Actually, US soldiers have a fairly good reputation in this area. Most of the GIs behave more or less as they would at home
So then we have nothing to fear from an international court.

If the Army sends you overseas and you rape a local girl, you're going to wish you had brought her home and done it where the US civilian courts could punish you.
There's something about a court run by the army trying the army itself that doesn't sit quite right. Think about it from an outsider perspective. Wars play out internationally, so an international body is required when someone commits a war crime.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about due process to determine POW status?

The Geneva convection is clear about what is a state of war - which does not require a declaration of war - an armed conflict between clearly armed, organized members of an armed forces.

The US cannot call them "unlawful combatants" - a term not used in the Geneva convention - and say that they are following the Geneva convection.

For a good read see
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Articel 4.A.6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Article 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Recap:

You have asserted not one fact, you made up a bunch of crap and declaired the US in violation of some un-named "international law".

Check the other AC guy post about your fucked up idea of war declairing. He is right, you are full of Chomsky.

Re:Sound familiar?

[SpitFU]

"But you still haven't cited any proof of your claim that the US gives more to needy countries than the rest of the world combined. It simply isn't true. Constant images on TV of bags of grain marked "US Aid" doesn't amount to much other than nationalistic propaganda. The rest of us don't make a big deal of it, and generally don't make foreign aid a media event. "

Here is your proof.

According to the U.S. Overseas Loans & Grants Online

The U.S. in the period of 1946 to 1999 has Loaned or Granted 346 Billion in US dollars to Foriegn AID just in the Economic Aid, this doesn't included military aid or assistance. Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and Asia top just a little over 100 Billion during that period when combined. Here's another fact from the same website, of the 346 Billion only 41 Billion of the principal amount has been repaid to the United States.

If you don't believe it go check out the website.

http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/index.html

Re:Sound familiar?

[Ian Wolf]

I did not know that, but I suppose now that I think of it, that certainly makes sense.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assertions are not facts last time I looked.

ROFLMAO!!!! That is all you have given us sofar!

What "international law" requires any country to make a fancy little "declairation of war" when it defends itself (always allowed under the UN Charter) or when it attacks another country?

Your statement is FALSE and you have provided NO SUPPORT for it.

At least others posted links to the Geneva Conventions, refrenced the Constitution and other binding legal documents. So, PLEASE post the text of this law, if it exists, prettyb please?

Re:Sound familiar?

[endoboy]

Watch what he does... actions speak louder than words. Sorry to hear about your narcolepsy...

As for proof, how about this:

Associated Press, Sept. 24, 2002
WASHINGTON- Twelve nations have agreed with the United States' request not to turn American peacekeepers over to a new international criminal court, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues said Tuesday

Or this:
NY Times, October 6, 2002
U.S. EXEMPTED FROM COURT
The European Union agreed to exempt American soldiers and government officials from prosecution for war crimes at the International Criminal Court. The decision by the 15 member nations would prevent the extradition of American suspects, as long as the U.S. government guaranteed that the suspects would be tried in an American court. The Bush administration fears that Americans in peacekeeping or overseas military operations could become targets of politically motivated trials

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet still the U.S. did not react with a reciprocal Declaration of War. Therefore under international law the U.S. is not at war.

hey, clueless, the president does not need a declairation of war, the congress does not need to grant one either. i looked at google and could not find the law you are talking about, can you post it? if what the ACs are saying and refrancing is true then the rest of your stuff is wrong too. what law did the states break anyway?

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

ok...thats alll I asked for isn't it?

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fullest extent? My Lai ring a bell? 500 civilians dead. Lt. Calley gets into court, but in the end serves 3 years of house arrest...

I hope that's not supposed to horrify me. Other nations would give him a fucking medal.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Latent IT]

What "international law" requires any country to make a fancy little "declairation of war" when it defends itself (always allowed under the UN Charter) or when it attacks another country?

Your statement is FALSE and you have provided NO SUPPORT for it.

I agree completely. He argues like my wife - just keep saying the same thing over and over again, a little differently.

Dear, is that you?

Re:Sound familiar?

[eam]

> this is a thinking man's board.

WHAT?!?!?

Have you actually read anything posted on slashdot?

Re:Sound familiar?

[endoboy]

boy, that's the lamest retraction I've ever read...

If you're going to be so ardent in your position, you could at least admit being wrong

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

So then we have nothing to fear from an international court.

Nothing to fear but the court itself.

Re:Sound familiar?

[jazman_777]

also, unlawful combatents have no right to communicate to the out side world, and while camp x-ray was not conforming, camp delta is.

What exactly is an "unlawful combatant"?

Re:Sound familiar?

[jazman_777]

Somehow I seem to have missed a Declaration of War by the U.S. Congress. Therefore the U.S. can not hold someone as an enemy combatant under the laws of war, because the U.S. is officially not at war.

Shows that the US is a rogue lawless State. The Congress and the President just scoff at the Constitution, like it's some dead letter. If God is just, I am scared for the USA.

Re:Sound familiar?

[VivianC]

Try getting their status straight and then realize that we are treating them properly. They are not under arrest, they are combatant detainees. We can hold them as long as hostilities persist.

While I agree with your message, I must point out that they are ILLEGAL Combatant detainees which would technically put them at risk for execution. So far, they have ben granted a higher standard of living than they had received in Afghanistan.

But, maybe we should be above this kind of detention. The prisoners are Arabs, correct? Let's send them to some nice Arab country where they can have all their rights respected and protected during their torture and execution. Egypt or Qatar should do the trick. Maybe even Saudi.

Re:Sound familiar?

[RealAlaskan]

>> Actually, US soldiers have a fairly good reputation in this area. Most of the GIs behave more or less as they would at home

>So then we have nothing to fear from an international court.

We have nothing to fear from any court which follows our standards for acceptable behavior, and our standards for justice. How about a sharia court, run by an appointee from Armpitistan? How about a UN court run by that same appointee? The UN is an organization of enemies of the US. Even the countries which are not dedicated to our destruction, and pass as civilized, generally have radically different legal systems. Bad as our legal system is, most of these others are worse. Ours (and to a lesser extent, the British system from which it sprang) begins with the intent to protect the individual from the mob, and from the government. That second clause is where the British system is a bit weaker.

Wars play out internationally, so an international body is required when someone commits a war crime.

I suspect that most folks who say this are thinking of the Neuremberg trials, where we let the British and Soviets in on the action. They had helped defeat the Nazis, and so it would have been hard to justify not letting them participate. It seems obvious to me that for most of the times where US troops have been dispatched to act as mercenaries for the UN, this is a false analogy.

Think about it from the US perspective:
1) We won. The Nazis had lost.
2) Point (1) means we are the good guys. The Nazis were the bad guys.
3) The ``allies'' in our recent police actions haven't contributed much, as far as we are concerned. I'm sure it's more than they wanted to contribute, but their reluctance dosn't make it look better.
4) A trial in a UN court would be at the urging of the defeated party, and he wouldn't be satisfied unless he packed the court with his allies.
5) The UN considers Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Syria and Uganda (and I think North Korea) to be our moral equivalent.

Points (1) and (2) are humor. Points (3) and (4) are serious matters, and I think they explain why a UN court is a non-starter for us. Point (5) explains part of why I view the UN as an enemy organization.

Re:Sound familiar?

[JoeBuck]

Among the prisoners being held in Guantanamo are a dozen Kuwaitis. While some are likely to be bad guys, at least five appear to be there by mistake, apparently humanitarian workers trying to help with the Afgan refugee problem who got swept up in the dragnet.

Now it's possible that they aren't telling the truth, but they are just sitting there rotting with no chance to make a case, not even to a military tribunal. The scariest quote in the article I link to above is

So, are they guilty or innocent? And of what? The Defense Department says answering such questions is not what Guantanamo is about.

There are supposed to be two categories of people that can be captured in war: a POW, or an illegal combatant. The former is entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, and the latter, as an accused criminal, is entitled to the rights of an accused criminal. Instead, a third category has been invented, or rather, copied from the South American generals of the 1970s: suspected "enemies of the state" who simply disappear.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Alsee]

There's something about a court run by the army trying the army itself that doesn't sit quite right.

I guess that's a reasonable feeling if you think it's the army that's on trial. On the other hand if you think it's the soldier that's on trial then your statement is simply broken.

-

Re:Sound familiar?

[jazman_777]

The state department is currently going around the world strong-arming countries into agreeing not to deliver US citizens into the evil clutches of the court.

I think "bribing" is more accurate than "strong-arming", although that would be used for those resistant to bribes.

Re:Sound familiar?

[susano_otter]

...the U.S. is violating fundamental human rights at the moment.

You've assumed that human rights are fundamental, but what makes them fundamental? Are these rights fundamental because the law says they are? This can't be the case, since the laws of some nations recognize these rights, while the laws of other nations do not. So clearly law alone does not have the power to transform these rights from a theory into a reality. It seems much more likely that laws merely recognize a preexisting condition of fundamental human rights, that exists independently of the laws that recognize it.

Now if the rights themselves are real, and exist independently of the laws that recognize them, then it follows that no law is necessary to address issues relating to these rights. Furthermore, it follows that breaking a law is different from violating these rights. So the U.S. could very well be in contravention of every treaty on the planet, and still not be violating the rights of these prisoners.

In fact, the U.S. could be in compliance with these treaties, and still be violating the rights of the prisoners.

And we still haven't really looked at what makes these things "fundamental" human rights, and what--exactly--makes it a violation to detain one person, but makes it perfectly acceptable to detain another.

Re:Sound familiar?

[mvdwege]

Ouch. You're right, the use of the word fundamental was a bit careless there.

However, the rights the U.S. is IMO violating are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, of which the framers used words like 'inalienable' and 'self-evident' when talking about them.

Since these same rights are to be found in human rights treaties signed and ratified by the U.S., I hope you can understand why I called them fundamental. In the context of this debate they may as well be, notwithstanding that in a larger context the fundamental nature of certain rights might be debatable.

Mart

Re:Sound familiar?

[GMontag]

I like your style!

If you are really Anne Coulter, will you marry me? How's that for covering "the ask" ;-)

Actually, unprivileged combatant, illegal combatant and irregular combatant are interchangable.

Re:Sound familiar?

[susano_otter]

Ack! I didn't mean to make such a big deal of of your use of "fundamental" (which I agree with, by the way), except to address your argument that "contravention of treaty" = "violation of rights". If the rights are indeed fundamental, as you and I seem to agree they are, then they can be upheld or violated independently of the law.

To determine whether or not the rights of these prisoners are truly being violated, we'd have to look outside the law and discover what makes these rights a reality, and what universal principles govern these rights.

Re:Sound familiar?

[mickwd]

1) OK, this was perhaps a little unfair on my part. I didn't mean to denigrate the Red Crescent organisation, but I wondering whether, given the original poster's comments, he would have the same level of trust of a muslim organisation. However, given his reply, it appears that he does.

Re:Sound familiar?

[u38cg]

No. Illegal combatants have no rights whatsoever under any law, anywhere. It is something which needs changing, but it dates from the days when 'illegal combatant' didn't mean the aid worker in the wrong place at the wrong time, it meant the spy behind enemy lines.

Re:Sound familiar?

[hdw]

1) Will it be OK if the internation red crescent (yes there is such a thing - it's a muslim organisation) says they're being treated OK ?

The International Red Crescent isn't a muslim organisation, just as the International Red Cross isn't a christian one.

To quote the American Red Cross FAQ:
Why are symbols other than a red cross used by other National Societies within the Movement?
Although the red cross is not a religious symbol, some societies view it as such. The symbol of the red crescent is used instead of the red cross by societies in most Islamic countries; and the Magen David Adom, or Red Shield of David, is used in Israel.

Re:Sound familiar?

[njdj]

the US military has been very determined about dealing harshly with the evildoers it finds in its ranks. If the Army sends you overseas and you rape a local girl, you're going to wish you had brought her home and done it where the US civilian courts could punish you.

Crap. Just one soldier, Calley, was convicted over the murder of over 300 unarmed civilians, including many children, at My Lai. He spent less than 5 years in prison.

As for the US soldiers who rape Japanese children, the penalty for a similar crime in some US states is death, so I don't know what you were smoking when you typed that bit of your comment.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Dread_ed]

You sir, Kick Ass! That is all.

Re:Sound familiar?

[hdw]

Then a serbian commander who committed a war crime should not be held accountable by the ICC but instead be court marshalled in Serbia, as long as his war crimes weren't consistent with Serbian policy at that time?

Then why are the US pressing Serbia to hand 'known war criminals' to the ICC?

Or is there a difference?

Re:Sound familiar?

[Corfiot]

Ok, I'll bite.

So, you want us to send our soldiers as mercenaries to wipe your behind for you, and then you expect us to turn our soldiers over to whatever butcher is running the world court this year? We are not amused. Don't forget, the UN is filled with nations that want to destroy us (and you, too, if you're in Europe).

Um... the US seems to be running the UN currently along with sidekick Mr Blair from the UK. If you are going to be the super power you might as well consider the underlings' sense of justice.

Plus I really don't see what it is the US is doing that the rest of the world would be unable to do... Maybe they are unwilling?

The US has always been a republic. Insofar as we can avoid democracy, we have a chance to keep our freedoms.

*Cough*... Your Republic gave you Bush. And that, after a global embarassment of doing it the way you did it.

*pauses to let this sink in*

And I'm sure you would keep your freedoms... eg the freedom to unbiased news (CNN), the freedom of information (DMCA), human rights (people in concentration camps in Cuba), security (twin towers) and quality entertainment (WWF) :-p

Our State Department would do nothing of consequence. If it became a common practice to treat Americans thus in some country, the government would advise us not to travel there.

Um, it already does that with about 80% of the world's countries. Including the 'birthplace of Democracy', Greece which is full of US tourists, Turkey, which is also full of US tourists... and so on and so forth.

Besides, you know as well as I that the outcry to US citizens being in a concentration camp somewhere (in the depth of indonesia for example) would result in a push from the US public to do something.

Which means a bombing. :-p

I mean, it appears to be your (presidents' i should point out) solution to everything. It failed in Yugoslavia, it failed in the FIRST attempt at saddam and again, did you hear the news, Saddam has reconfirmed his authority in Iraq by public vote if I am not mistaken...

Oh and the Taliban have fallen from power in afghanistan but Mr Laden is still bombing australians.... in Indonesia was it?

So... scale back on the rhetoric please and wake up. The role of the superpower is something you don't do very well.

--Corf

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interrogation is the only issue.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Hanno]

We have nothing to fear from any court which follows our standards for acceptable behavior, and our standards for justice.

For a start, the US are not following its own standards for acceptable behavior and its own standards for justice in that nice little prison camp in Cuba.

I fear a super power that does not want to be accountable for its actions.

Re:Sound familiar?

[smetnoc]

*cough* They're not? They were imprisoned during a war, were they not? prisoner of war: A person taken by or surrendering to enemy forces in wartime. war: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. (the above were taken from dictionary.com) I am sorry, they ARE prisoners of war.

Re:Sound familiar?

[hdw]

So, you want us to send our soldiers as mercenaries to wipe your behind for you, and then you expect us to turn our soldiers over to whatever butcher is running the world court this year? We are not amused. Don't forget, the UN is filled with nations that want to destroy us (and you, too, if you're in Europe).

Actually, US soldiers show up where they can contribute to US foreign policy.
Not where some 'others' want them to show up.
No country, including the US, is required to send military troops to assist the UN.
The UN Security Council (where the US is a permanent member and has full right of veto) can ask the member countries to assist in an ongoing conflict.

If the member country is going to act on this request is a purely national decision.

No significant change in any UN organisation, including the ICC, can occur unless the security council agrees.
And as stated, the US is a permanent member and has full rigth of veto.

So, no one has forced the US to send troops.
They have been asked to do so, just like all other members of the UN.
But the difference is that all other troops that are sent to assist the UN are also bound by UN legislation, including the ICC, except US troops.

Re:Sound familiar?

[ces]

Saddam has reconfirmed his authority in Iraq by public vote if I am not mistaken...

I'm sorry but I'd hardly call that an "election". It has about as much legitimacy as the so-called elections the USSR used to have. The only votes possible were "yes" or "no" for Saddam and all of the balots were numbered to identify those who voted "no" or failed to do their patriotic duty and vote.

Jeb Bush is considering adopting this system in Florida.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Xenophon Fenderson,]

If I recall correctly, it is Israeli intelligence which uses torture to get information. Cf. http://www.free-market.net/forums/main0203b/messag es/838491397.html, http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/mitejmes/issues/200105/ br_asmar1.htm, http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar98/mde15.h tm.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Llyr]

While they do not have rights once it has been decided that they are an illegal combatant, this label is supposed to be given to them by a international tribunal, not arbitrarily by the captor. And until the tribunal has ruled them to not be POWs, they are entitled to protection as if they were.

And it doesn't matter whether the war has been officially declared or not. However, did Afghanistan sign on to the Geneva Convention? If not, the whole argument is null and void (as well as offtopic).

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

...Remember you are supposidly a free country with 'apparent' freedom of speech, religion or beleif, becuase it is suddenly a bad thing to be against 'mainstream America' those rights are consistanly forgotten.

Plotting to kill people, raising arms against the United States and plotting to attack innocent civilians is hardly "being against mainstream America". Think about what you are saying. You're justifying terrorism.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Afghanistan as a government ceased to be during the overthrow of the King in the 1970's.

By changing their governmental system they voided all prior agreements of said government. So unless the Taliban signed on to the Geneva Convention (doubtful) then they never did sign. Also, there is no provision in the Geneva Convention for an 'international' tribunal. Simply any tribunal would do. Illegal Combatants have no rights under the Geneva Convention whatsoever. They are not even considered criminals per se as they are not defined by anything more than being considered illegal combatants. Therefore they can be dealt with by the holding force in any way they choose.

As for those who state that the United States is subject to having it's forces held under the same methods as Guantanamo Bay, think about it for a minute. When do you see US soldiers out of uniform on the battlefield? Never. Even the special ops folks in Afghanistan were wearing their uniforms (look very closely at the photo's if you don't believe me. US markings all over them)

But I don't suspect the people who want to believe that the U.S. is the cause of all trouble in the world will care about this.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. The definition of the word 'war' does not define the term 'prisoner of war' except in happy hippy land where words can mean whatever the hell you want them to.

The term 'prisoner of war' is defined by the Geneva Convention, therefore if they don't meet that qualification, then they are not 'prisoners of war'

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunatly what do we do? We have a stack of LOONS that want to kill us! Send them back to where they came from with a pat on the back, so they can be even MORE pissed off? Now we have a large chunk of people that would be very motivated for revenge. Do you let someone go that WILL kill again? They've sworn to do so. They almost celebrate killing and murder. Just so long as it is not one of the holy. And if it is one of the holy, then they died in the cause is the exuse. These are not rational thoughts, but they are coming from rational people. They have rationalzied what they do in the name of God. It is a leap of faith and they have taken it. They belive that they and their family will be better off if someone that has not done much to them dies. Just because that other person belives something different.

Now lets play what if. What if tommorow GW decides lets send them home. A) where is home? The govement they were defending no longer exists. B) the goverment that is there now, could they deal with these enemys of their state effectivly. Would they? Or would they take them out back and shoot them? C) Would these people be open to retrubition from people that they tormented before. D) could the new goverment protect them? E) Do we now have to follow these people around and make sure they dont blow something else up of ours? F) Does the new goverment over there even WANT them back?

None of those points have easy answers. Let me better ask this question. If we had to send them somewhere would you want them in your backyard? Or would you rather have VERY serious soldiers with guns watching them?

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you are wrong about this. Embassies around the world are considered part of the "motherland" for lack of a better word. If you are caught committing a crime you would be subjected to the rules and regulations of the embassy's mother country. This is similar we purchased the land that is known as Gitmo and Cuba gave up all rights to this land. Contrast this to the British and Hong Kong where for close to a century the British had a little corner of mainland China but they were "leasing it" and had to agree to give it back to China around 1997.

We purchased most of the midwestern US from France in the early 1800's without any "law" of emmenient domain. We also purchased Gitmo so Cuba doesn't have a leg to stand on as to whether they want it back.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the one catagory of people that can be captured that have NO rights whatsoever. SPIES.

Could these people be spies? Yes they could and what rights do we afford spies?

This whole Gitmo thing is getting out of hand, they are getting better treatment there than if they were housed in Afganistan guess what people it's going to be winter in Afganistan and Cuba's climate while not the warmest is also a hell of lot warmer than where I am. They also get 3 square meals a day and very good medical treatment (well better than they would get in their "home" country.) I have been homeless in my life and wondered where my next meal and "bed" were going to be and these "combatants" have it better than a lot of people.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me some of what your smoking.
The only crimes that I know of that are actually punishable by death are First Degree Murder, Spying and possibly treason. Although we can sentence you to a prison where you might wish you were dead for raping a child you would not get executed for it (Unless Bubba your cell mate wanted more than you were willing to give and slit your throat.)

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Key word: loaned

So you have contributed more to the third world debt than the other countries that have done this.

Loans to needy countries can never be considered aid, quite the opposite in fact. They are really no different to loan sharks albeit on an international scale. How any group of people could publish a report of "aid" figures and include loans in them is digusting. These "loans" strangle the economic systems in over 80 countries. Check the above link, my country has done the same, it's sickening.

The reason only a fraction has been repaid is because the countries are so poor. They will never be able to pay and the interest will keep mounting up. That's just evil.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Deraj2002]

So what you're saying is, throw common sense out the window. If the US military has overwhelming evidence that points to these individuals involvement with a terrorist organisation and they feel that the informaion that these individuals have could help prevent further attacks and save countless lives (which I beleive it does), is not that right enough to detain these individuals? They are in the business of defense. Looking out for our best efforts and the rights of indivduals should never outway the security of the masses.

Re:Sound familiar?

[len_harms]

Your Republic gave you Bush. And that, after a global embarassment of doing it the way you did it.

Yes the LAW was upheld. That a few dips decided they didnt like the outcome and did it publicly was grand fun! I direct you to the constitution of the united states sir. amendment XII But if your too lazy to read it Ill sum it up for you. X number of people per state vote (determined by population). They are elected by the majority in the state. Those people then vote for the pres. It has worked that way for awhile. It was not made up by a bunch of FOOLS. It was done so no one LARGE state can dominate the smaller states. Its a very well thought out system. Sometimes not fair to the majority. But a well thought out balance so the minority is not squashed. Take this map for instance Bush-Country. It shows that MOST people live in the blue areas. But the other half lives in the red. Interesting but secondary to the LAW. Me? I voted for him because he was consistant and at least does what he says he will. The other guy?...

And I'm sure you would keep your freedoms... eg the freedom to unbiased news (CNN), the freedom of information (DMCA), human rights (people in concentration camps in Cuba), security (twin towers) and quality entertainment (WWF) :-p

Yes I do like my freedoms eg FOX news, NBC, ABC, CBS, Times, AP, Reuters, BBC, local papers, local news stations, and even CNN when I can tolerate their drival. If you sir are getting your news from one source you definatly need to look around there are MANY choices out there. You just need to watch out for a 'AP/Reuters' fluff story. These tend to be on all the stations. They also tend to be filler that means very little.

DMCA is a bad law. But the constitution puts congress IN charge of these matters. The constitution does not say congress shall not make a bad law. It will "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." To help remidy what the DMCA has done I can vote in two different ways. I can choose NOT to purchase junk from companies that pander this junk. IE RedHat in this case. They have take ownership of something they do not exactly own and said they would be breaking the law. Which is pure FUD. Whoever WROTE the bug in the first place owns it, or the person who owns the project owns it. Thats GPL. The other way I can vote is to remove people from office that pass this junk. It didnt exactly pass with a huge margin. It was then signed into law by a president that was to busy covering his ass or getting a BJ. Im not saying he was stupid or dumb. Im saying his interests were not in the best interests of America. It was more in the interest of filling his pocket book and looking good. Least the presedent we have now can talk the talk AND walk the walk.

Human rights?! HA what about 3k of people killed what about them? Do we send these LOONS back to do more? For surely they will. They probably have not exactly reformed their ways while in prison. Also assuming Afganistan wants them back. How can they insure they wont be shot or killed the second we send them back? They cant and probably will not. Also even IF they are not killed we now have to follow them around like little children and make sure they dont blow more shit up. nice.

WWF while drivel is exactly why America is cool. You can create PURE junk and not only not be killed over it. You can get RICH from it. Was there a WWF under the taliban regiem? It would not have been squashed because its stupid. It would have been squashed because it broke taliban law. But then again there is PBS, BBC, NPR, and other sources. But of course you did your research before that nice statment...

Besides, you know as well as I that the outcry to US citizens being in a concentration camp somewhere (in the depth of indonesia for example) would result in a push from the US public to do something

Yes it would. But would the other countries step up and help? Probably not. The would laugh and sneer at us. We are protecting our interests. That is the job of the presedent. To protect us from enemeys foreign and domestic.

I mean, it appears to be your (presidents' i should point out) solution to everything. It failed in Yugoslavia, it failed in the FIRST attempt at saddam and again, did you hear the news, Saddam has reconfirmed his authority in Iraq by public vote if I am not mistaken

So your saying about the bombing is we should add another 100 or so soldiers back into the ranks of bombings. Im sure Indonesia may have a few words to say about that.

And the only reason he is still in power is because is because the Saudis want a country between them and Iran. They were about to go apeshit on us. We DOMINATED that country. We made concessions not to Iraq but to Saudi Arabia. The first people to suffer under Sadams command is his OWN people. But obviously he is doing a awsome job at it. Since he has been slaughtering thousands and thousands of his own people. For someone who cries foul over a couple hundred you seem to overlook the THOUSANDS that this 1 man has killed.

First you confuse 1 president with another. Second I would hardly call that an election. Third Saddams athority was mostly given to him by America. He would not be where he is without us. He has simply chosen to spit in our face now. Well we dont take kindly to that.

You seem to have a bucket of stones but very few answers. Other than other people are doing things wrong. What are YOU doing about it?

Re:Sound familiar?

[GMontag]

Somehow I seem to have missed a Declaration of War by the U.S. Congress. Therefore the U.S. can not hold someone as an enemy combatant under the laws of war, because the U.S. is officially not at war.

Not required under the US Constitution, nor the Laws of War. Please cite your proof, others have posted the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions in other posts under this general thread. They are correct and you are wrong. Please cite your proof.

As posted by others, under the Constitution, Geneva Convention and the UCMJ US troops can be deployed in this effort as well as take unprotected combatants and hold them until cessation of hostilities and repatriation. Please post your refrences in law to the contrary.

Since according to international treaties and the U.S. Constitution the U.S. government has no other way to hold someone prisoner without a specific accusation of a crime, the U.S. is violating fundamental human rights at the moment.

Please post proof of this too. ANY country can hold unprotected OR regular/protected combatants until the cessation of hostilities and repatriation. This has been demonstrated by other posts and properly refrenced. Please post your proof to the contrary.

The Geneva Conventions do not require a declairation of war for a state of hostilities to exist. Please post your proof of this to the contrary. Others have posted proof that you are wrong on this point too.

Re:Sound familiar?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Looking out for our best efforts and the rights of indivduals should never outway the security of the masses.

Wow. That point of view is just terrifying.

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

we did not buy the land like the Louisiana purchas, and it is not embassy land (which is still subject to eminet domain of the host nation). I believe I am correct about this.

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

an unlawful combatant is defined as a person whom is not fighting for any nation. Al-quada does not fight for a nation, they fight for themselfs, hence they are unlawful combatents.

Re:Sound familiar?

[GMontag]

Not now maybe after the international outcry at keeping foreign national in cages with no due process. As another poster said habeus corpus seems to have gone from the US legal system.

If this "outcry" is from people with your knowledge, it is fine by me.

"Due process" applies to those accused of crimes, NOT those captured as a result of war actions. Military prisoners got their "due process" when they failed to evade or kill those chasing them down. They have no "sentance" coming, they will be released when time for repatriation comes around, unless they are accused of war crimes.

No need to produce bodies for an trial not required.

Name one German or Italian WW I or II POW that was granted anything you are saying the detainees need to be granted.

Shame about the international criminal court 'though.

All I have to say to that is... HUH? The body grantig the exemption said oaky as long as the accused were tried in the US.

And didn't the US administration say that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the detainees as they aren't members of a recognised army or some such?

No, they said that the detainees are unprotected combatantants under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. The topic was covered there, the detainees are thusly covered and manybe you need to read up on this before your foot makes it to your colin the long way.

Re:Sound familiar?

[the_2nd_coming]

well you just suck and that is wrong and I am right and your a doh doh head

how is that ? :-)

Re:Sound familiar?

[GMontag]

Please, for CRYING OUT LOUD, PLEASE name the "things like this are covered by _international_ law, like the Geneva Convention and such..."!!!

Name the Article of the Conventions and cite the "_international_law" you folks keep referring to.

Others have posted links to the Gineva Conventions that contradict you and they still do not trump the US Constitution as far as US law is concerned.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I seem to have missed a Declaration of War by the U.S. Congress.

Somehow I missed where this even matters. I looked it up and could not find it. Can you give us a link?

Re:Sound familiar?

[GMontag]

For a start, the US are not following its own standards for acceptable behavior and its own standards for justice in that nice little prison camp in Cuba.

Would you please expand on this? The detainees are being treated just as of they were real POWs. Please show proof to the contrary.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but I'd hardly call that an "election".

Al Gore would. Too bad the USSC told Florida that they had to follow the election laws rather than making every vote count only if it counted for Gore.

Good thing for you Sadam does not have the USSC to contradict him, a luxury that New Jersey now basks in.

Re:Sound familiar?

[VivianC]

Sorry to break your heart, but I'm not her and I'm already married. I just wanted some modifier on combatant to designate that they are not POWs.

Keep swinging. Love your work.

Re:Sound familiar?

[myowntrueself]

As I recall, the US navy captain who ordered an Iranian airbus (full of civilians) shot down because it might have been an Iranian F14 (with no known capacity to damage an aegis cruiser),was never disciplined in any way whatsoever. Ok so US military personel *frequently* exhibit exemplary behavior. However, when they don't there are rarely any legal actions taken against them.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Army sends you overseas and you rape a local girl, you're going to wish you had brought her home and done it where the US civilian courts could punish you.

There's something about a court run by the army trying the army itself that doesn't sit quite right. Think about it from an outsider perspective. Wars play out internationally, so an international body is required when someone commits a war crime.

The US Military polices itself very carefully. I'm not sure what the punishments are these days, but there's a bunch of unmarked graves on Oahu of soldiers executed (yes, executed, mostly by hanging) for rape.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, US soldiers have a fairly good reputation in this area.

I haven't had a similar experience with the soldiers of any other nation so I little basis for comparison of the following statement. My visit to Singapore a few years back coincided with the visit of an American aircraft carrier (and the accomanying battlegroup) so the city was full of soldiers on shore leave. While I realize that the average age of the crew of an aircraft carrier is in the low twenties, I was a little embarassed that my country was being represented by some of these individuals.

I can understand that being stuck in a can for months at a time can be stifling, but I didn't think trashing an entire district of bars and restaurants was necessary. In the morning, they even had a huge orange tarp upon which was deposited the passed-out bodies of the overly inebriated sailers. I wouldn't be suprised to see something like this on a college campus during rush week but I expected a bit more from our armed forces.

Re:Sound familiar?

[mvdwege]

My, my, my. You really are a pitiful little man.

Now that others have posted good arguments as to why my position might not be entirely correct, you suddenly found the courage to stop slinging anonymous insults, and hiding behind their hard work you expect me to discuss things with you?

Tell you what, if others brought forth arguments I'll discuss with them. You, sir, are simply not worth talking to.

Mart

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

BAHAHAHA!

I posted the truth, you posted lies and *I* am pitiful?

Everything *I* posted was verifiable, has been verified and NOTHING you posted was correct.

BTW, when *I* post AC I let all know it is me, Montag.

Re:Sound familiar?

[endoboy]

bite me

Re:Sound familiar?

[Dragoness Eclectic]

If you ever read the UCMJ, you'd know that the penalty for rape can be death. Ditto for desertion... it's just that the government does not usually choose to exercise the death penalty option.

Also, military prisons are considered "hard time", not country clubs. The expression I always heard was "spend a few years making little rocks out of big ones up at Leavenworth".

Re:Sound familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shows that the US is a rogue lawless State. The Congress and the President just scoff at the Constitution, like it's some dead letter. If God is just, I am scared for the USA.

Only if you accept the bullshit you cite as fact. In reality, we ARE following the Constitution as well as International Law. Plenty of proof all over this thread to support it too.

Re:Sound familiar?

[Lars T.]

If the Army sends you overseas and you rape a local girl, you're going to wish you had brought her home and done it where the US civilian courts could punish you.

However if the US Marine Corps sends you to Italy, and you fly into the cable of a cable car, "taking risks", flying too low, and killing 20 people - you get off free.

Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

-- LEGALESE --

PLEASE READ FIRST.

Unfortunately the DMCA prevents this document being issued to US citizens.
This document is a copyrighted work. The authors choose to exercise their
first distribution rights to prohibit the distribution of this work in the
United States Of America, its dependancies, embassies and anywhere else
under US law.

Redistibuting this document in the USA may be a criminal offence under the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act with punishment including jail sentences.
Attempting to test these holes in the USA, even with the permission of the
system owner may be an offence. Discussing this document with a US citizen
may be an offence.

This document is made available for free without warranty or other right of
recourse implied or otherwise. No statement save one in writing by the owner
of the copyright changes this usage agreement. Any export download is at your
own risk and liability.

There is no other user agreement, should your local law make such an
agreement invalid you are prohibited from using this document, and may be
committing an offence by redistributing it.

NO WARRANTY

BECAUSE THE DOCUMENT IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE DOCUMENT, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE DOCUMENT "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE DOCUMENT IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
DOCUMENT PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE DOCUMENT AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE DOCUMENT (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE DOCUMENT TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
DOCUMENTS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

-- END LEGALESE --

Security Holes Fixed In Linux 2.4.19

None of the holes documented here are remote. All these problems were
uncovered by auditing and there are no current exploits available. In
the interest of openness and ensuring people are aware of the security
fixes they are documented.

- If the Stradis driver is loaded (hardware must be present) a
maths overflow allowed the user to scribble into kernel memory

- It was possible to feed the SE401 USB hardware driver signed
values and fool kernel checks. This requires the hardware is
present

- The usbvideo driver could be fooled due to a maths overflow corner
case. This requires drivers to be present

- The /proc/slabinfo file could exceed a buffer size and cause
corruption of the kernel. This is really beyond user control but
if it occurs then the user can trigger the corruption

- By setting the TF flag a carefully constructed binary could hang
the kernel dead

- By misusing the rlimit resource limits it was possible to avoid
acct data being written on your process exit

- The joystick driver had erroneous copies in obscure ioctl cases
that could be used to patch the kernel as any user. Hardware
must be present and the module loaded for this vulnerability
to occur

- Multiple errors in the vm86 handling allowed users to force an
"Oops" from the kernel and in some cases to corrupt kernel data.
An additional small fix is needed for 2.4.19 but not 2.4.19-ac
(see bottom)

- The rt_cache_proc file could be tricked into returning chunks of
kernel data.

- On a system with over 1Gb of RAM the loop driver could in some
cases fail and expose kernel data. This is not under user control.
On 2.4.19 the loop driver works fine with large memory systems.

- Multiple /proc files could be persuaded to dump kernel data
due to a sanity checking bug in the proc file handlers

- The XMM SSE registers were not always cleared for new processes
and could expose data from a different task. While it was not
possible to modify another tasks registers there is a small risk
because some cryptographic systems have XMM acceleration functions

We also fixed problems that required privileges to exploit. These affected
the IBM S/390 dasd driver, Openprom on Sparc systems, the Intermezzo file
system, the ewrk3 network driver, module loading, the microcode driver and
vm86. We document these in the interest of completeness.

Finally on a -ac based tree with PnPBIOS enabled a problem existed in some
quite common BIOS implementations that causes a crash when certain 32bit
BIOS calls are made. This allowed users to crash some systems by reading
files in /proc. These files are now root private. The base tree is not
affected as it lacks PnPBIOS support

Credits

The authors would like to thank Silvio Cesare, Stas Sergeev, Andi Kleen,
Alan Cox, Solar Designer, and many others for their work on making 2.4.19 a
more secure kernel.

-- Additional Required Patch --

diff -u --new-file --recursive --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude linux.20pre1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c linux.20pre1-ac1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
--- linux.20pre1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 2002-08-06 15:40:50.000000000 +0100
+++ linux.20pre1-ac1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 2002-08-06 15:42:19.000000000 +0100
@@ -305,8 +319,13 @@
static void inline do_trap(int trapnr, int signr, char *str, int vm86,
struct pt_regs * regs, long error_code, siginfo_t *info)
{
- if (vm86 && regs->eflags & VM_MASK)
- goto vm86_trap;
+ if (regs->eflags & VM_MASK) {
+ if (vm86)
+ goto vm86_trap;
+ else
+ goto trap_signal;
+ }
+
if (!(regs->xcs & 3))
goto kernel_trap;

@@ -514,10 +533,15 @@
{
unsigned int condition;
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+ unsigned long eip = regs->eip;
siginfo_t info;

__asm__ __volatile__("movl %%db6,%0" : "=r" (condition));

+ /* If the user set TF, it's simplest to clear it right away. */
+ if ((eip >=PAGE_OFFSET) && (regs->eflags & TF_MASK))
+ goto clear_TF;
+ /* Mask out spurious debug traps due to lazy DR7 setting */
if (condition & (DR_TRAP0|DR_TRAP1|DR_TRAP2|DR_TRAP3)) {
if (!tsk->thread.debugreg[7])

Re:Oh no...

[amichalo]

- The joystick driver had erroneous copies in obscure ioctl cases

Thanks, I now understand why we in the US should never have access to this sort of information.

I was expecting the secret hideout of Dick Cheney

Re:Oh no...

[boogy nightmare]

Hmmm someones going to get spanked for that post, breaking the copy right nd putting the US citizens at rick (phew thank flip in an Englishman)
Do you ever get the impression the Presidents just sign stuff without knowing what they are talking about.................DMCA

Re:Oh no...

[ActiveSX]

It's not that Clinton didn't understand the law, he was just *slurp* distracted at the *slurp* time.

Re:Oh no...

[boogy nightmare]

Ah yes i can see the problem. On one hand you have the protection of free speech an expresion of your population within a digitla medium and on the other hand a cigar, lady and a whole heap of trouble............ yes, i can see where it went wrong..

'Men have two brains, unfortunantly they only have enough blood to run one at a time'

Akira

Re:Oh no...

[Zathruss]

..."phew thank flip in an Englishman"...

No, I'm not going to flame you about the spelling; I did have a good laugh at the visual that inspired, though.. Thank you ;)

Re:Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

So now, should you or me fly to Cuba voluntarily? At least, one of us can try to be the hero die fighting against DMCA. :)

Re:Oh no...

[MikeAR303]

I covered my eyes after reading the legal stuff... I just hope I didn't cover them too long and miss a "that site is /.'ed!" or "imagine a beowulf cluster of those!" post.

Re:Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Revolting

Re:Oh no...

[McFly69]

Geeee nice going. Now with this posted in the comments and anyone who reads/post the comments is liable for the above comment. Good thing I did not post anything...^C^C^Z^CsdSD#$RJ^C^C^Z

FUCK ...STOP SUBMIT BUTTON!!!

^C^C^Z^Z@#@#SD....

Re:Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

oops... I read it... better toss me in jail now..

BTW, isn't the Kernel open source? How does the Kernel itself not violate this DMCA thing that I've never heard of..

LOL.. better stop distributing the Linux Kernel.. might violate someone up the bung hole!

Re:Oh no...

[racerx509]

what would be funny is if RedHat actually envoked the powers of the DMCA and decided to bust you guys. For posting this. Then we would have something to take to our congressman

Re:Oh no...

[smoondog]

I'm a moderator, and I was going to moderate this post, but then I realized there wasn't a "-1 Illegal" option...

-Sean

Re:Oh no...

[mrlpz]

Here's one for you....contact the ACLU. Tell them that the DMCA disallows free speech in that it inhibits someone who has pertinent knowledge concerning security issues that could affect life and limb ( think of all the devices and automated systems that operate on some sort of linux based system ), and tell them that the DMCA limits free speech in that you are disallowed to speak about those dangers. Try that ONE on for size....I wonder what the ACLU would actually say to that !?!

Re:Oh no...

[rosie_bhjp]

No, but Cheney's secret hideout is here and its perfectly legal to discuss this and enter into your favorite rendering program all the building information that you can glean from the satellite photos, make a quake mod, practice assaulting the place. However, you will go straight to hell for [reading, discussing, thinking about] faulty joystick drivers. God Bless the USA!

Re:Oh no...

[cpuenvy]

Please make your $500,000 check payable to ME, criminal ;)

Re:Oh no...

[bnenning]

For most DMCA violations it should be "+1 Illegal".

Re:Oh no...

[moderators_are_w*nke]

Not if they're British.

Re:Oh no...

[mslinux]

Wees all goin to jail now boys, sure nough wees are!

May da soul ob da man dat posted dis ere henious, criminol infoe_mation be damned by Gawd hisself.

Re:Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop capitalizing "kernel", shithead. It is not proper grammar.

Re:Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "two heads," not "two brains."

Re:Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would still rather have a president that gets blow jobs than one that gives blow jobs.

Re:Oh no...

[Alsee]

I would still rather have a president that gets blow jobs than one that gives blow jobs.

I have no objection to having a president that gives blowjobs. Err, as long as it's not Monica Lewinski. I don't think she would be a very good president.

Hmmm, I was going to say that I wouldn't be too thrilled with Hillary Clinton either, but I doubt she gives blowjobs.

-

Re:Oh no...

[Elwood P Dowd]

Supposedly, it's not up to Redhat. The DMCA is about a criminal felony. If Redhat were able to decide who to prosecute for a criminal felony, then we would not all have equal protection under the law, and the DMCA would be unconstitutional.

That's why Adobe said, "Oh, nevermind. Skyalarov is fine with us." but the feds had to keep pressing. Perhaps they kept pressing just as a formality, but whatever.

Re:Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd probably say "We're strapped for resources right now, since we're fighting Ashcroft on about 10 billion fronts at once."

Re:Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, could someone please make a CS map based on this?

I would definitely play it, even just as a form of political protest.

Re:Oh no...

[slaida1]

I'd vote women lovin' president over gun toting dyslectic apeman anyday.

What we need is a recursive DMCA

[Junior J. Junior III]

So that it will be illegal to explain to someone why it's illegal to explain to someone why it's illegal to...

Re:What we need is a recursive DMCA

[kuberkoos]

DMCA = acronym for DMCA May Constrain Americans?

Re:What we need is a recursive DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Ashcroft & co are working on something similar. Johnny A wants to make it a Federal Crime to Conspire to commit a Federal Crime....

Oooh... my head is spinning...

Re:What we need is a recursive DMCA

[sineltor]

America's system works on this methodology:

Give a man a candle and you'll warm him for an hour.
Set a man alight and you'll warm him for life.

We can't just give people candles because they might try to work out how they work, or, worse work out how to disable their safety mechanism (ie. blow the candle out) thus gaining access to the inner workings of the candle (the wick, etc...). This is clearly a breach of the DMCA

Pointing out the flaws in my argument is against the DCMA! :p

Re:One day...

[Pave Low]

you fuckin idiot, clinton was the president when the dmca was passed, what the fuck does Bush have to do with this? sounds like more knee jerk america bashing again.

and yet, on slashdot this is +5 insightful! hooray for this great moderation system!

I have a bad feeling

[Anonymous Coward]

that somebody is gonna post the whole text of it here on slashdot and that I'm gonna see a blank DMCA WAS HERE page when I load up my homepage.

Re:I have a bad feeling

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFL. That's offtopic?? Tommorow when all you see is DMCA was here I bet somebody will mod it +5,Insightful

Re:I have a bad feeling

[Anonymous Coward]

see above...post title Oh No

Re:I have a bad feeling

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah when I originally posted I wasn't reading any of the AC posts. I only saw the that were above 0. So now that they already posted it yeah its kind of lame, but before I saw the OH NO I thought I was bein pretty funny :D

Re:I have a bad feeling

[Anonymous Coward]

Score: -1 - Too Late

for those without the minerals to read on

[evacuate_the_bull]

you can bypass that scary disclaimer and read all that hidden information here (reg. req'd, blah blah) :)

China Here we come

[attobyte]

Soon the US will be like China. Anyone want to make 50 cents a day to program Microsoft software? :)

Atto

Re:China Here we come

[giminy]

Anyone want to make 50 cents a day to program Microsoft software? :)

...So you're saying that China pays its workers pretty fairly, then? :)

Hysterical rubbish

[91degrees]

Posting this in the US would not be a violatiuon of theDMCA except if you used some ludicrously tortured logic. It would be like me claiming that you disagreeing with this post is a violation of the DMCA. the complainers also knwo this. This is why they make vague claimns about "the DMCA" rather than specifying the explicit clause in the DMCA.

I know a court has ruled deCSS to be in violation of the DMCA, but that was because the judge was stupid, and the MPAA was smart enough to convince him that the utility is "primarily intended for circumvention of a protection mechanism". The keyword there is "primarily".

The security fix information is not primarily intedned to do alow people to break into servers, and it would require some rather convoluted argument to suggest that it should.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

except if you used some ludicrously tortured logic.
Earth to 91degrees. Come in 91degrees. The only logic your US polititions use is ludicrously tortured. Earth out.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[elmegil]

Posting this in the US would not be a violatiuon of theDMCA except if you used some ludicrously tortured logic.

They are posting information about ways to break the security of Linux. That sounds an awful lot like a DMCA violation under the same parts that were used to threaten Professor Felten, and indict Skylarov. The only difference is that Linux is not an asset of the entertainment industries....

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[91degrees]

On the contrary - it's overly simplistic.

It assumes that any measures to prevent piracy are good, and nobody will want to use a movie in any way except that in which the MPAA expect you to.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[nagora]

I know a court has ruled deCSS to be in violation of the DMCA, but that was because the judge was stupid, and the MPAA was smart enough to convince him that the utility is "primarily intended for circumvention of a protection mechanism". The keyword there is "primarily".

So, is your point that there is only one stupid/bent judge in the system or that there is no one who would have a vested interest in having RedHat slapped for breaking a stupid law? In either case, you're wrong.

TWW

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[91degrees]

I'm not saying the DMCA is a good law, or that it isn't over-reaching. Just that it isn't as over-reaching as people make out.

Felton broke a copy protection scheme. He didn't propose a solution to a broken scheme. He just broke it, leaving the RIAA without protection. Even that considerably less tenuous case was abandoned by the RIAA who probably realised they couldn't hope to win.

Skyralov also broke a copy protection scheme. And the case here seems considerably more tenuous, but this was still a piece of software written explicitely to circumvent a technological measure (Admittedly the use of the term "copy protection technology is a stretch here, but that was the intended purpose). The point being that he broke it to get software to work. The security posting includes a fix for these problems. It would be hard to argue that it was posted to break the security in this case.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[91degrees]

The point is that no judge is stupid enough to believe that a posting of a fix for a security issue is primarily intended to circumvent the security.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[jjo]

The fact that the trial judge in the deCSS case was stupid is not of great concern. The fact that two appeals-court judges
agreed with him is.

Because of the appeals-court decision, DMCA censorship is now the law of the land in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. Unless a foreign site could somehow prevent access from those states (a difficult proposition), the only way to be really safe is to exclude the entire US, as these people have done.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[headshrinker]

You state that it's not violating the DMCA, unless you used some ludicrously tortured logic. You then give an example of some ludicrously tortured logic that the MPAA used to get deCSS rules illegal. And you wonder why they don't want to release this info to US citizens?

They have no guarantees that this same logic won't be used against them. Why risk it, or silly amounts of money in legal fees?

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

We can tell that you have never been inside a court room.

Lucky you.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Scarblac]

Posting this in the US would not be a violation of the DMCA except if you used some ludicrously tortured logic.

Tell that to Skylarov, who wrote a program that was mandatory in Russia under Russian law, and who found himself in jail in the US under the DMCA. It doesn't matter if he wins in the end, or isn't even allowed back in or whatever. He's totally innocent, has nothing to do with the US and shouldn't have been treated like that.

You can make up any BS laws you want for yourselves over there, but totally innocent people who have nothing to do with the US end up in jail because of them. I think the thefreeworld.net site is a brilliant idea.

If there's even the tiniest chance that some information posted could be illegal under some strange law of a country you have nothing to do with (and this security info certainly could be), and they're known to get (innocent, foreign, never been to the US) people jailed over this stupid law, then the prudent thing to do is post that info only on sites like this.

Unfortunately, given how few people in the US even know their own laws, it's practically impossible for people in Russia, Norway etc to be aware of all the weird quirks in US law, and they don't even know they should be aware of them. And people from those countries were still jailed for doing something perfectly legal. The US is a threat.

I'm sorry for ranting, mod me a troll or something, I can get real angry over stuff like this.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[91degrees]

Tortured logic:

DeCSS is used primarily for the purpose of circumventing a copy protection scheme protecting a work covered under this act.

so, deCSS was designed primarily to circumvent a copy protection mechanism. Even if you only want to watch the movie, the DMCA makes it illegal to cicumvent the copy protection restrictions.

There were other legal ways to achieve the few other legitimate uses.

Digital movies on DVD are covered under the act (it being a copyright act)

There's nothing tortured about this.

A security patch on the other hand is not primarily designed to circumvent anything, but to fix it.

It can not be acheived any other way.

There is nothing under copyright protected by this security scheme.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Rader]

.....was abandoned by the RIAA who ...

Yea, abandoned after his door was kicked in by local authorities. Guilty until proven innocent.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing the point. Posting the fix is not a violation of the DMCA. Posting information about what security holes it fixes might very well be a violation since this information can be used to circumvent security in non-patched systems.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[91degrees]

You don't understand. I agree that the DMCA is a bad law. Skyralov did nothing wrong (unless you assume that breaking a technicality of a foreign law is in itself evil). But it doesn't apply in this case.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Scarblac]

You don't understand [...] DMCA is a bad law [...] But it doesn't apply in this case.

Says you. Even if you're right, a law suit would bankrupt me immediately. Why take the risk? Distributing to everyone but the US still reaches 95% of the world...

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[xa0s]

I know a court has ruled deCSS to be in violation of the DMCA, but that was because the judge was stupid, and the MPAA was smart enough to convince him that the utility is "primarily intended for circumvention of a protection mechanism". The keyword there is "primarily".

i wonder why americans can't use the same logic to get rid of guns... last i checked weren't guns primarily used to murder people?

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

I know a court has ruled deCSS to be in violation of the DMCA, but that was because the judge was stupid, and the MPAA was smart enough to convince him that the utility is "primarily intended for circumvention of a protection mechanism". The keyword there is "primarily".

And now it's a prior decision. Any asshole can claim you are voilating the DMCA, and if your case (to the untrained eye) looks like it is similar (they both have source code), then it is already decided, and you go to jail. Puppet trial.

Land of the Free, home of the brave; my ass.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Grax]

All DVD players have circuitry and programming used primarily for the purpose of circumventing a copy protection. How do you think the movie gets copied from the DVD to your video screen?

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

My rifle is primarily used to put holes in a piece of paper that has several concentric circles printed on it. So I guess I get to keep mine.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[91degrees]

Don't tell me. I agree with you. The DMCA is a bad law, but that doesn't mean it applies in this case. Tell the judge. Tell the EFF. Tell 2600. I already know.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[platypus]

Posting this in the US would not be a violation of the DMCA except if you used some ludicrously tortured logic.

I'm not going to argue with you about Felton, Skylarov and stuff. But let's look at it from another angle:

1. RHAT is a public company, i.e. they have shareholders
   
2. Because of 1, they have a responsibility to do the best for the present/future of their company, i.e. not playing silly political games.
   
3. Doing what they did do can have a bad effect on their reputation (unamerican, non-patriotic, pro-terrorists - you get the drift), which in turn will negativly affect their ability to make profit
   
4. Not doing what they did do might have also bad consequences, i.e. core developers get arrested.
   
5. They have lawyers.
   

Combine 1 and 2 with 5, and you come to the conclusion that you have to ask lawyers in order to cover your ass.

Now I have to ask: Are you are lawyer?

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that he was busted because his company was activly selling the product in the US.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

As we all know, non-US politicians are models of logic and fairness. Why, just look at the open election Iraq just had!

For your info, numerous other countries are in the process of enacting laws as bad or worse than DMCA, and no other country on earth has anywhere NEAR as strong a judicial system as the US, so there is no way the laws can be modified or overturned by court action, as is possible here.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Rader]

yea right, and rope is primarily used to hang people.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[morie]

So, we correctly defined overly simplistic logic to be ludicrously tortured logic.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[PCBman!]

We don't have our dicks far enough our congress critter's butt to get that kind of thing passed. Besides that. We don't need gun control, we need bullet control. "I'd put a cap in your ass if I could afford it!!!"

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[MrResistor]

I know a court has ruled deCSS to be in violation of the DMCA, but that was because the judge was stupid, and the MPAA was smart enough to convince him that the utility is "primarily intended for circumvention of a protection mechanism". The keyword there is "primarily".

First of all, DeCSS is illegal under the DMCA, it has nothing to do with the judge being stupid or the MPAA being smart. The whole purpose of DeCSS is to circumvent CSS, which is a protection mechanism. That's not it's primary purpose, or even it's secondary purpose; that is it's only purpose. Since that is specifically what the DMCA was crafted to make illegal, I don't see how anyone who isn't completely ignorant can say that DeCSS doesn't violate the DMCA.

Furthermore, the judge was not stupid at all, he was corrupt, which is a different thing entirely. He was one of the authors of the DMCA, and as such the ethical thing for him to do would have been to pass the case on to another judge due to his obvious conflict of interest. However, he knows that law as well as anyone does, and he is certainly capable of spotting a blatant violation of it, which DeCSS is, on his own.

The only question in the case was whether the source code to DeCSS was criminal under the DMCA or protected speech under the First Amendment. This is where Kaplan's corruption took hold, and he declared that the functional use of the code took precedence over it's educational or informative value.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[theLOUDroom]

Except that posting the fix itself (with source) makes it possible for you to examine the new vs old code and figure out what the security flaws are. This means that even the patch itsel;f gives you information about how to break into an unpatched system. Thus, even posting the fix could be a violation of the DMCA.
What a stupid law.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether his company was selling the product or not is irrelevant.

Dimitri did the work legally in Russia and broke no laws.

Dimitri, as a lowly employee, cannot be responsible if his company then decides to sell the product in the US if it breaks US law.

If what you say is okay then why don't people with lung cancer sue all the employees of the tobacco companies? After all by your reasoning the farmers who grow the tobacco, the people who harvest it, etc. are all just as guilty as the company then.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[theLOUDroom]

You don't understand. I agree that the DMCA is a bad law. Skyralov did nothing wrong (unless you assume that breaking a technicality of a foreign law is in itself evil). But it doesn't apply in this case.
Read your own post.
Skyralov did nothing wrong (in Russia), yet he was still prosecuted under the DMCA. How these other people safe? The DMCA applies, because security flaws in a system are being discussed. They are trying to protect themselves from what happened to Skyralov.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference here is that the patch is not primarily intended to circumvent security, but actually make security tighter.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[91degrees]

You're right.

Actually, I regret mentioning DeCSS. It is largely irrelevent to my post except in that it is very different from the security patch.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

An interesting point, though, is that there probably isn't anyone who would act as the MPAA did against 2600.com and bring suit. Who has an interest in defeating RedHat? Yes, I am sure some of you will say Microsoft, but they have no way of claiming damages for this.
Suits can be brough only for two purposes in the US: to seek recompense for damages or to rectify a situation. Microsoft cannot claim damages, nor make a real valid case for rectifying the situation. Best case, they ask RH nicely to remove the explaination from the web. Big deal.

Slyarov ticked off Adobe (rightly so), and 2600.com ticked off the MPAA. Both plaintifs had valid claims to damages, and continuing damages without the current situation being rectified.

Would the US Dept. of Justice actually decide to enforce the DMCA on its own, and sue RH for publishing a security fix? Seeing as there is a rather large initiative at the moment for enhanced computer security being pushed, in part, by the US Dept. of Justice (think of the new Cyber Crimes Division at the FBI), they have no reason to waste time doing this. So as a practical matter, the publishers would be fairly safe.

However, this does make a pretty good point.

N407ER

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[xa0s]

actually i think rope is primarily used to tie things up and such:)...

you cant seriously think its the same argument with guns... guns were designed with no other purpose in mind than to kill things... and giving the ole bs argument that people use it for sport hunting is no better. Shooting an innocent defenseless animal to death for sport is just about as sickening as murdering a person in cold blood IMHO

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[91degrees]

Skyralov circumvented a copy protection mechanism. Nobody here has circumvented a copy protection mechanism. Instead they fixed a security hole.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

If what you say is okay then why don't people with lung cancer sue all the employees of the tobacco companies? After all by your reasoning the farmers who grow the tobacco, the people who harvest it, etc. are all just as guilty as the company then. [ Reply to This | Parent ]

Well, there is a case to be made.... You just have to prove that they all knew that what they were doing was contributing to lung cancer.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Rader]

I'm not a member of the NRA or anything. And even though I agree that the main purpose of a machine guns or hand-guns might involve killing people, this is why I still think we have the right to bear arms:

If we were denied the ownership of all guns, and we didn't have any... we'd never be able to overthrow a tyranical government.

I know it's a silly idea. Images of a rifle behind a glass box with the words, "In case of dictator, break glass".

But think about it. We're always talking about how the government is systematically taking away our rights. DRM, DMCA, fair use, etc. The less rights we have to stand on, the harder it is to stand up for the last few they want to take away.

The USA started out as rebels against England. They clearly listed the things that they thought were most important, and things that England tried to take away from them to fight back: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to bear arms. Take away that combination, and you could easily pass a law where it's against the law to huddle together and talk to 3 or more people at once---wouldn't want anyone planning a revolution!

Martial arts was created because Asian governments forbid the use of real weapons. They didn't want the peasants to revolt against the unfair treatment.

Our government allows for only 2 terms of office as president. What if Bush decided that for our best interest it would be better if he stayed 4 more terms? Or decided to set up a monarchy so that his son could be the next president... :)

Someone posted some links yesterday about people being unlawfully arrested for peacable protests. This really bothered me. Take away this combination of human rights: The right to privacy, and Free Speech (the right to protest) and you basically would NEVER be allowed to have an unfavorable opinion against the government.

I don't even own a gun. (My hunting rifle has been at my parents house for the last two decades) But I would be very concerned if I wasn't ALLOWED to have a gun.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[nagora]

Who has an interest in defeating RedHat? Yes, I am sure some of you will say Microsoft, but they have no way of claiming damages for this.

Actually, I can think of a few scenarios where Microsoft, or anyone else, could get RH into court over this by using a "tame" customer and a faked security breach.

The point is not that this is a likely scenario (which it certainly isn't) but that it should not be a possible scenario.

Slyarov ticked off Adobe (rightly so), and 2600.com ticked off the MPAA. Both plaintifs had valid claims to damages, and continuing damages without the current situation being rectified.

The MPAA never had a case against 2600, the DeCSS code is pretty well useless for copying DVD's (in comparison to the way they are really copied) and they only got the win by getting a judge that was prepared to ignore the evidence and the law to do his old bosses (that's right - the judge used to work for the MPAA's legal department) a favour. In the UK we call this "corruption" or being "a bent judge".

TWW

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[YrWrstNtmr]

OK, smart guy...how would you do it?

How would you get rid of guns?

Go door to door, asking for every citizen to turn in his firearms? What about those that use them only for target shooting? (And how do you tell?)
What about people that actually feed their familes with a rifle? Go out and kill a few animals, and have meat for a few weeks/months? There aren't many of these, but there are some.

Collectors? "No, you may not keep your collection that was passed down to you by your father." Suuure.

What if someone refuses? (and MANY will). Jail? Already overcrowded. Do you shoot him? THAT'S a fine solution.

And even if you convince ALL of the above to fess up, what about criminals? By definition, They won't conform. So you're left with the only people in posession of firearms are the police, military, and criminals. And these are just about the only people who use them now outside of firing ranges.

So you have actually achieved nothing, except for removal of mostly harmless firearms from lawabiding citizens.

I am no guntoting NRA member. Currently, I do not own a firearm. I have in the past, and probably will in the future.
But there is really no way to do this.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[theLOUDroom]

They don't need to actually circumvent a protection scheme. All thet need to do is provide information that makes it possible and that information cas be consided a circumvention device or whatever it was that HP was going to sue under the DMCA over.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[91degrees]

They have to provide information primarily designed to circumvent a copy protection scheme. Not information that could be used to do so.

Secondly it has to circumvent something designed as a copy protection mechanism. Linux is not.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[schon]

Posting this in the US would not be a violatiuon of theDMCA except if you used some ludicrously tortured logic

No, it isn't - here's the logic.

At it's core, the DMCA protects anything that controls access to a copyrighted work in the digital domain (like on a computer). Basically, telling people how to circumvent an access control is a violation of the DMCA.

File permissions - by definition - control access to files - the Berne convention states that pretty much anything that's created by a human is protected under copyright law (like the files protected by your file permission bits.)

The detailed changelog lays out steps on how to circumvent file permissions, therefore it's in direct violation of the DMCA.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[xa0s]

do you really think you stand a chance in HELL of overthrowing the worlds most powerful military machine with your dinky little semi-automatic rifle (last i checked, automatic weapons were still illegal in the U.S.)?.. even if you had a thousand.. a million... theyd still squash you like the anti-government militia that you are to them..

fact is guns are used MORE for illegitimate purposes that legit... just look at all the countries with strict gun laws (esp. pistols being illegal like here in Canada).. the amount of violent crimes being committed in those countries are significantly lower than in the U.S... show me a legitimate use for selling military grade weapons to the public, and ill show you a crazy serial killer going around murdering people randomly.. anyone remember something about a sniper on CNN?

the idea of having the right to bear arms is just a silly outdated excuse for gun nuts to satisfy their fetish.... i'll admit it, holding a hand gun makes you feel powerful.. its like a drug... but not a necessary one

and maybe thats not even such a bad thing, but dont be a hypocrite... if you allow something with mostly horrendous uses, and few legit, why not allow them all? the answer is money.. theres a shitload of money in making and selling arms, and the powers that be in the U.S. are heavily backed by certain lobbies and thus will make sure that there are always guns around to be guns sold.. and tobacco.. and alcohol... and fossil fuels... but no drugs, because drugs are the spawn of satan, and they cant tax those... theyll convince you its in your best interest to support guns because of the 2nd amendment, and your right to defend yourself against criminals... fortunately, for the criminals, but unfortunately, for you, they too can defend themselves when they break into your house...

i love the idea of a free world... but there is absolutely no legitimate use for any civilian to own a gun..

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[91degrees]

Which section?

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

Distributing to everyone but the US still reaches 95% of the world...

And almost 20% of the computers! Wow, good job there...

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[charon_on_acheron]

xa0s says: "Shooting an innocent defenseless animal to death for sport is just about as sickening as murdering a person in cold blood IMHO"

And I see no difference between killing a deer to make venison steaks and killing "an innocent defenseless" head of cabbage to make coleslaw to go with those steaks. So by your reasoning, a head of cabbage should have all the privleges as a human, although only non-gun-owning people are considered human. Face it, something has to die for you to live.

And for the record, I don't hunt. The only animals I kill for sport are ants. I can spend an afternoon squishing those little bastards to death. Is that also as sickening as murdering a person in cold blood?

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have an account here because I usually don't bother posting anything on /., but you've successfully trolled me...

you cant seriously think its the same argument with guns... guns were designed with no other purpose in mind than to kill things... and giving the ole bs argument that people use it for sport hunting is no better. Shooting an innocent defenseless animal to death for sport is just about as sickening as murdering a person in cold blood IMHO

There are plenty of people where I live (Hawaii) who are very poor, who rely on hunting as a source of food. All the ignorant PETA-type bastards who forget that not everyone is a spoiled-ass egomoniacal idiot with an oversized tab at the taxidermist make me ill. Worse yet are the ones who eat meat they buy nicely wrapped in the store and yet argue that hunters shouldn't be allowed their weapons because "Shooting innocent defenseless animals to death ..." is evil. What the hell do you think they do at slaughterhouses?! (and yes, I know what I'm talking about in either case, as my father is a cowboy (<insert random witty comment about CowboyNeal>)).

So possession of guns as a whole should be banned because you have moral objections to some activities that might possibly involve the use of a gun? (note emphasis: neither murder of another human being nor killing of animals requires the use of a gun). Or is it that guns should be banned because killing people and animals with a gun is worse than if you used, say, a knife?

Sorry to all who had to read my mostly inflamed rant, but fuck...

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[some guy I know]

it has to circumvent something designed as a copy protection mechanism. Linux is not.

If I "chmod 600" a file, then my intent is that nobody but me and root can read, and thus copy, that file.
Therefore, "chmod 600" is a copy protection mechanism.
Therefore, if somebody publishes information about how to circumvent "chmod 600" in order to copy a file, then that person is publishing information about how to circumvent a copy protection mechanism.

Whether this is illegal under the DMCA, I don't know, as IANAL, but I can understand someone's reluctance to publish such information, based on my federal governmnnt's recent behavior.

And I wouldn't depend on our increasingly fascist legal system to do the right thing when it came to determining whether or not defeating a copy protection mechanism was the "primary purpose" for its publication.

Re:Hysterical rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP was specifically writing about killing animals for sport, not for food.

Re:Use the source?

[loply]

Yes, ofcourse, but you may not be able to fathom out what the patch does from the source. A security fix which prevents a buffer overflow could be as simple as adding or removing a typecast, which, if the kernel coders themselves didnt realise could be a security issue - Most Joe User's wont notice either... :(

Still, as a principal, it is a bit silly to disallow a text describing the change but allow the source which IS the change. Stupid law.

Ridiculous ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could post an email adress of representitives that are responsible for this DMCA. The people could write to them, telling them how ridiculous this is, so that they might change their view. But knowing politicians from other countries I guess they wont unless there is money involved.

Personally I would laugh at such stupidiy if politicians in other countries wouldn't think to apply similar laws.

Re:Ridiculous ...

[Rader]

reresentitives don't read their own email due to the risk of contacting the anthrax virus 2.0

You have the right to remain silent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law.
Land of the free ride to jail.
What the fuck has happened to our country? It's time to get rid of all the unenforceable bullshit laws. Copyright holders do not have the right to have their business models enforced by the police. And as for prohibition let's get the fuck over it.

Re:You have the right to remain silent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard on the radio yesterday that here in Georgia pre-marital sex is illegal. I've been breaking that one for so long I should be locked up for life!

Re:You have the right to remain silent.

[liposuction]

Amen.

Re:You have the right to remain silent.

[Rader]

True.

Corporations don't have the god-given right to continue making profits! (and in a recession no less)

Nor do I think the music monopoly ranks up there with farming, steel industry, etc to gain protection from the government.

Re:You have the right to remain silent.

[MonsterChicharo]

True. They don't have the right. They have the moral obligation to do so.

Re:You have the right to remain silent.

[Grishnakh]

Copyright holders do not have the right to have their business models enforced by the police.

No, copyright holders DO have this right. They've legally purchased this right from Congress. If you want some rights, you need to pay Congress for them too. What did you think, that this was a country by the people, of the people, and for the people?

Re:You have the right to remain silent.

[jskline]

I think he's right. Seems to be with all the "new" laws and such, going on the books, and even ones that were put up a few years back, it looks more and more like you are giving up your freedom.

An Idea

[Derg]

To quote the article:

Does this mean that all of the companies issuing security advisories are breaching the DMCA?

Does this mean that when MS decides to release a "security patch" for one of its releases, and explains why this patch is necessary and how it might be exploited, that they are in breach of the DMCA? Could someone sue MS for releasing details that are then used to build a worm? (CodeRed comes to mind...)

Just my $.02

Re:An Idea

[Dog and Pony]

Of course someone could. But not, under US law, without having more money than Microsoft has - if they want to win.

Re:An Idea

[Palarran]

So, Microsoft's program of quickly released, well documented patches is being cancelled?

Re:An Idea

[Derg]

slightly ot but..

why does it take tons of cash and lawyers when you have the law so much obviously on your side? In this imaginary case, MS releases info about problems with IIS. Someone then goes and builds a worm, exploiting that weakness and targeting non-patched systems. Lets say I am the one who owns the now infected server. Had MS not published the weakness, what is the probability that the writer of the worm would have known to target that weakness, especially seeing as its closed source? What exactly could MS say if I were to sue them for releasing information that enabled someone to take control of my server?

I just dont see why I would need an expensive lawyer to argue this point in front of a judge.

just my $.02

Re:An Idea

[Centove]

They'll toss the ever present EULA up and say, oops sorry we aren't responsible. Software was provided 'AS-IS'... too bad so sad.

Re:An Idea

[jc42]

Does this mean that when MS decides to release a "security patch" for one of its releases, and explains why this patch is necessary and how it might be exploited, that they are in breach of the DMCA?

Probably not, but if YOU were to do this, you would be in violation of the DMCA. The main point of the DMCA is to protect companies from you and me revealing that security-related products are shoddy.

I recently got involved in a specific discussion where this might apply. Some people discovered that they could get the text out of most MS Word docs using the unix "strings" command. The format isn't pretty, but the text is there. The problem is that you also get "deleted" text that Word has just marked deleted but hasn't erased. This text can be from other docs that the sender's copy of Word has processed. This could be a very serious security leak in some cases.

This could be fixed in a unix mail reader, if the programmers could get enough info about the Word format to identify the deleted text and skip over it. This would presumably be legal. But if you were to describe the security issue when releasing the patch, you would be guilty of publicising a security flaw in MS software, and would thus be in violation of the DMCA.

So far, the decision seems to be to keep quiet about this, and just treat it as Someone Else's Problem.

There is the outstanding question of whether we unix/linux geeks are committing a serious crime if we warn Word users about this security issue. In particular, what sort of danger am I in by mentioning it here?

Maybe I should submit this as an Anonymous Coward? Nah ...

Re:An Idea

[miltimj]

That's why the entire /. community must sue together in a class action suit.

Re:An Idea

[program21]

You'd want to have a lawyer who completely understands the law, and has faced judges before. Not to say you don't know a fair bit (I don't know either way), but you'd definitely want to be sure that what you're arguing is actually covered in the law, and covered the way you use it.
In addition, if you lose, you're stuck paying court fees at a minimum, which can get hefty in some cases.

Re:An Idea

[Grishnakh]

*knock knock*

*jc42 opens door*

Goon: "Do you post on slashdot as 'jc42'?"

jc42: "Um, yeah"

Goon: "You'll have to come with us."

jc42: "Who are you guys? Do you have a warrant?"

Goon: "Just shut up and we won't have to hurt you."

*jc42 never seen again*

Re:An Idea

[linuxelf]

Yeah, but the chances of Microsoft releasing a security patch are pretty low, and the chances of them telling you what was patched is even lower, so it's probably a non-issue.

Re:An Idea

[Derg]

Why not? such a thing would work, given the very wide range of knowledge in the /. community, ranging from people who are well versed in law, to those equally well versed in the technical applications. I dont know if the parent was meant as a joke, but such a thing, in theory, would work. Any volunteers to organize such a suit?

No matter how Insightful the comments may be in these discussions, actions always speak louder than words.

Re:An Idea

[zurab]

Does this mean that when MS decides to release a "security patch" for one of its releases, and explains why this patch is necessary and how it might be exploited, that they are in breach of the DMCA?

I would definitely think so. Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

I own and operate a local network using MS Win2k and their DRM. This network is not connected to the Internet at large, in fact, has nothing to do with the Internet. It's just a closed down local network. I use this network to serve my customers my copyrighted digital content; customers download the content, if they have paid for the right to view the content they do so, if not they are asked to pay for such right. Customer may or may not choose to proceed. This content can be documents, music, movies, etc.

After couple of months of using this system, MS gets its head out of the dumpster and declares that there is a security vulnerability in their Win2k/DRM software that allows anyone to get access to DRM-ed content by triple-clicking on the file icon (instead of double-clicking) from Windows explorer. That means all my customers who have downloaded but not paid for their content can potentially get access to that content without me being able to do anything about it.

In this case MS would have been engaged in trafficking the information that would aid in circumventing the protection mechanism (DRM), and that would allow my customers to view copyrighted, protected digital content. This would be in direct violation of the DMCA.

Now, I don't know how far this can reach; the example I gave states triple-clicking which is easy to understand by anyone. What if it's a buffer overflow? Then most of the users won't understand how the circumvention may work; but it would allow crackers to use the buffer overflow to free the content. In other words, how selective, or vague does one have to be in describing this type of vulnerability without breaking the DMCA? The law is just too broad; but I do know the answer - it will not be enforced against MS, RIAA, MPAA, it will be only enforced against people who these "special interests" don't like.

Re:An Idea

[jc42]

Interesting? Informative? Man was that bad moderation. It should have been moderated Funny.

(At least, I hope it's funny. ;-)

Re:An Idea

[Derg]

I am reminded of a comment made on EFFRadio about how copyright is intended, in the constitution, to protect the rights of the people, not the corporations. The speaker also makes a comment that if the people were to get together that they would be an undenyable force against the **AA's and the MS's of the world. I honestly do believe, that if the many readers of /. were to unite, and organize, however far fetched the idea may be, that things would get changed. maybe I am ranting, and no doubt will be modded down for being off topic, but I have to let my opinion be known.

what if

[tanveer1979]

The US gov says that all sites which can be accesed from US have to comply by its laws irrespective of its location, otherwise the country will be declared terrorist and bombed to kingdom come?

Dosent seem too unlikely considering the chaps at the top

Re:what if

[Anonymous Coward]

That is insanely paranoid and slanderous

Re:what if

[Anonymous Coward]

>he US gov says that all sites which can be accesed from US have to comply by its laws irrespective of its location, otherwise the country will be declared terrorist and bombed to kingdom come?

Hmmm.. I was just thinking: how long until GWB asks Congress for permission to invade Virginia? Some terrorist out of that locale is whacking US citizens right and left. Can't let some rogue country, especially that close to DC, get away with harboring a terrorist.
AnonCwd -- but soon to be cellocgw

Re:what if

[Anonymous Coward]

Your opinion is utter rubbish. VAT's are more effective than USian taxes.

Re:what if

[jeffasselin]

So we'll have a second Great Firewall, except that instead of a country keeping everyone else out, this one will be every other country keeping one in...

DMCA is a success

[javatips]

It really looks that the DMCA induce so much fear that people start to censure themself.

The media corporation must be really happy yo see this.

I doubt very much that the DMCA would apply to a description of a patch WITHOUT applying to the patch itself. If the patch is supposed to be legal under the DMCA, why would it's description would be illegal.

I believe that these guys try the wrong way to persuade others that the DMCA is bad.

Re:DMCA is a success

[handorf]

No, it makes sense. Teaching people about security holes is illegal. Patching them isn't.

Describing what you patched, though, would entail describing the security holes on an unpatched system. Ding! Go to Jail...

Re:DMCA is a success

[Anonymous Coward]

1. You can't read it because of the copyright/licence agreement that is associated with it, not the DMCA specifically. The owner claims to have invoked that copyright because of FEAR of the DMCA. It's kind of ironic (intentionally I think) that the author is using US IP regs (copyright)to point out a problem with the DMCA.

2. Why could you apply the patch, but not discuss it in detail? Because applying the patch **might** not reveal a way around something covered under DMCA, and **MIGHT** not break any covered mechanism. But a DISCUSSION of the vulnerability might reveal details of how the security mechanism works that would allow someone to bypass that mechanism.

3. You can also apply the patch because even under DMCA there is an exclusion that allows you to break or disable copy protection if it is preventing you from viewing or using properly licensed material or is not working as intended. This exclusion is contained in the Library of Congress "request for comment" document in the your rights online section. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that would also apply if there was an exploitable vulnerability in a security/CPRM application.

That said, the DMCA is definitely creating a chilling effect. The entities that most benefit have deep pockets, and I don't think that "Joe Blow Open Source" would want to put himself in the position of having to defend his decision to publish details of a copy protection scheme because of a vulnerability against 100 or so big media hired legal guns. Even if he prevailed in court, he'd probably be bankrupt.

Re:DMCA is a success

[Jorrit]

To me providing a patch in source form is exactly the same as providing a description. Source code is readable. People who can program in the language that the patch was made in, can understand (with a little bit of effort) what is going on there. So to me this patch is a description. It is only given in another language then plain english.

I leave aside what this implies for the DMCA though :-)

Greetings,

Re:DMCA is a success

[Zenithal]

The Patch is a fix for security flaws, something the DMCA has no problem with. (unless you happen to think breaking == fixed)

On the other hand, describing what those flaws are, and how they may be exploited IS in violation. So what you've said, "I doubt very much that the DMCA would apply to a description of a patch WITHOUT applying to the patch itself" is wrong in a couple of ways.

The presence of the patch actually weakens the legitimacy of the DMCA violation, not the other way around. The description, a laundry list of exploits, would be a much more valuable target. With that said, it's pretty clear no-one would even attempt to prosecute. The only reason this is being done as it is, is to call attention to a bad law.

As far as this being the wrong way, I think inconvinencing people and creating a dialog in the media is exactly the _right_ way to get the issue resolved.

Re:DMCA is a success

[meis31337]

Hrmmm.. Wouldn't the source code of the patch be a valid explanation that would violate DMCA rules? Can we be liable for compiling it? Ouch.

Re:DMCA is a success

[shren]

I believe that these guys try the wrong way to persuade others that the DMCA is bad.

What? This is one of the most effective anti-DMCA bits, uh, ever. "You, over there. In the US. You can't read this. Shoo." Telling people 'no' is a sure way to invoke thier interest.

Re:DMCA is a success

[Myopic]

as i understand it, providing SOFTWARE with regards to computer security falls under the "primarily intended for hacking" clause; whereas providing INFORMATION with regards to computer security does not, since INFORMATION can be turned into SOFTWARE.

that's why (as i understand it) a commercial DVD player isn't affected by the same clause that affects DeCSS -- the "primary use" is different; but that unlucky professor still can't discuss breaking the secure music format.

this could be wrong. i haven't read the law, and i'm sure as hell not a lawyer.

Re:DMCA is a success

[Colin Bayer]

The difference is that you have to make an effort to understand what was changed and why if only the source is distributed. Thusly, the person providing the patch gets off scot-free, and you get busted for knowing how to read C.

Re:DMCA is a success

[dissy]

To me providing a patch in source form is exactly the same as providing a description.

You are right.. and reading the patches source would be just as much of a violation of the DMCA. You are only allowed to install the patch blindly without knowing what it will do under the DMCA.

Fun times, arnt they?

Re:DMCA is a success

[Omnifarious]

Please define the distinction between information and software for me. After that, please define the difference between erotica and pornography.

Re:DMCA is a success

[Rader]

Isn't it ironic that hackers exploting, talking, & sharing information on how to Exploit a bug is considered worse than the software company that allowed the error in their software to begin with.

Add to that the fact that large software companies will often ignore these warnings, or sometimes even sue to shut these people up...

Re:DMCA is a success

[Malcontent]

I thought the courts already rules that code was not speech.

Re:DMCA is a success

[qwertyphobia]

Quite right.

The description is not a decription of the patch itself, but of the original flaw.

Taking this further: once the security flaw has been discovered, does it then become illegal to distribute the unpatched version of the software as it now contains a 'circumvention device'?

Re:DMCA is a success

[RealAlaskan]

To me providing a patch in source form is exactly the same as providing a description.

In other words, YANAL. You Are Not A Lawyer.

As Foghorn Leghorn would say: ``That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, son.''

Re:DMCA is a success

[Rogerborg]

• If the patch is supposed to be legal under the DMCA, why would it's description would be illegal.

Because it describes flaws that are present in unpatched versions, which means most versions for the next couple of years.

Re:DMCA is a success

[ryanwright]

please define the difference between erotica and pornography.

Erotic: Using a feather.
Pornographic: Using the whole chicken.

All clear now?

Re:DMCA is a success

[Pig Hogger]

please define the difference between erotica and pornography.

Erotica: what gives me a hard-on.

Pornography: what gives me a hard-on, and makes me whip-out my dick and jerk-off.

Re:DMCA is a success

[Fascist Christ]

To me providing a patch in source form is exactly the same as providing a description

It's like I tried to explain to my roomate in college: Writing a computer program is like writing a (quote number of pages from the last print out I made)-page essay... in a foriegn language... where if you mess up on spelling or punctuation or syntax, even a missing semicolon, you will fail miserably!

Re:DMCA is a success

[Anonymous Coward]

If women like it, it's erotica, if guys like it it's pornography.

Re:DMCA is a success

[shiflett]

While this is logical to people like you an I who have functioning brains, it is not true according to the legal system for the same reason why source code was not treated as speech in the first place.

In short, they can't make DeCSS illegal by declaring that source code is not considered speech (and therefore not protected by the first amendment) and also make patches in the form of source code illegal by declaring that source code *is* considered speech.

Re:DMCA is a success

[Bakaneko]

Heck it got mine, and I fussed and fumed at the doorway to thefreeworld.net trying to justify why I should click yes. Eventually though I decided to be a good little corporate citizen and go back to my hole. Then somebody posted it on Slashdot as a comment.

Thanks, whoever did that.

Re:DMCA is a success

[Myopic]

software is an implementation. you can't give information to an uninformed, uneducated Joe Anybody Computeruser and expect them to use it to watch downloaded DVDs. i've looked at DeCSS, and i couldn't have written it from any of the 'information' about cracking CCA i've ever read. but i bet i could compile it and run it if i tried.

How absurd!

[jmcwork]

Next we are going to find out that all US Citizens have been placed on Double Secret Probation!

Re:How absurd!

[Anonymous Coward]

D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

knee jerk bush bashing maybe, but he's still a moron. Bashing bush is not bashing america. And he does need a good lot of bashing these days.

Re:Use the source?

[obii]

You can use the source, but most probably the source won't give too much information. So you will have to _understand_ the source for the proper explanation.

Nonetheless, I think
> New kernel update available, fixes
> i810 video oops, several security issues

is too ridiculous. Video "oops"... ;)

In my opinion this strange DMCA that the USA have been using, has to be revised very fast.

Regards,
obii

More correctly, a human readable explaination...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, there is no reason why people in the U.S.A. cannot download the C source code for the patch and look at it.

As far as I know, an explaination in the form of C source code is legal - it is an explaination in a human language that is not.

Contrast this to the fact that a description of DVD decryption in English is, as far as I know, legal, but in C is, as far as I know, illegal.

It happened with full support of the REPUBLICANS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame both sides for the DMCA. Every REPUBLICAN senator voted for that bill.

What about kernel source?

[cr@ckwhore]

Ok, so Red Hat can't tell us what the patch is about... but from what I've read so far, I understand that its regarding security, and therefore, informing me about the security problem is illegal under the DMCA, because "it could be used to circumvent a digital copyright mechanism". (the computer)

But, what about the source? I can freely download the source for this patch, right? So, how does that NOT violate the DMCA? Lets say that obtaining the source for this patch were illegal... what conflict would this have with the GPL?

I fucking hate the DMCA... what a stupid piece of shit. It impedes free speach, which BTW is against the US Constitution, and it costs me money, because now I have to spend extra time researching a problem that is critical to the security of my business.

Re:What about kernel source?

[Martigan80]

But, what about the source? I can freely download the source for this patch, right? So, how does that NOT violate the DMCA? Lets say that obtaining the source for this patch were illegal... what conflict would this have with the GPL?

Well according to some courts, the code is not speech, so the source itself is not dangerous, but the binaries compiled are.

Re:What about kernel source?

[cr@ckwhore]

Alright then, so RedHat should do this... /*

kernel advisory here

*/

There. Its code.

Re:What about kernel source?

[Rader]

Actually, I thought the guy selling t-shirts with the DeCSS code on it was even getting in trouble.

Re:What about kernel source?

[jskline]

I think we don't have these freedoms anymore, or at least they're quickly being taken away...

Re:One day...

[Majik]

But this wasn't passed under him, it was passed before him. That should read, "Will you buy from media cartels that exploit the weakness of the human condition with respect to money? *sigh*"

Re:Sound familiar? US Citizens, too!

[Insightfill]

the idea that the US authorities are going to start flying non-US citizens to Cuba to shoot them...

Actually, with all of the "enemy combatants" running around, I think a bunch of US citizens might be getting carted off to Cuba for the same treatment.

I could be wrong, but nobody can prove it one way or the other because habeas corpus appears to be missing, too.

Yeah, I know, off-topic.

This is the solution for KaZaA, and the like

[Scarblac]

If programs like Kazaa were hosted on sites like this, then the program isn't distributed to Americans, and hence there is no argument left to drag them (a Danish/Dutch/Australian/Some Baltic State-ian operation...) into a US court.

Any Americans still using it (by lying on the form) would do so illegally, of course. Kazaa could maybe even sue them if they wanted to...

Re:This is the solution for KaZaA, and the like

[Zathruss]

And lose the majority of their ad targets? I don't thing they would do that anytime soon.

This reminds me of that "McDonalds is into real-estate not burgers" thread.

Re:This is the solution for KaZaA, and the like

[Scarblac]

And lose the majority of their ad targets?

I think they'd keep getting Americans downloading it just as much. Most people using Kazaa wouldn't have trouble lying on a web form. But it removes their legal liability in the US, as far as I can see.

Re:This is the solution for KaZaA, and the like

[Anonymous Coward]

Or knocks holes in the concept of click-through agreements... sounds like a win-win to me.

Thats assuming that the rules apply uniformly to everyone, of course

Clever tactic

[akookieone]

Sounds to me like this is a stunt. Clearly they will get media attention (thanks Register) and hopefully get picked up by major media in the states. This is especially possible if there is a nice long stream of indignation from folks on Slashdot (including mine). That said, what a great stunt, and for what a great cause. Some one at RedHat is smart enough to be motivated not by legal paranoia (however recently justified) but by political savvy.

Re:Clever tactic

[PhipleTroenix]

This is unlikely to be piacked up my major media. They are the ones who are in favor of DMCA status quo.

Re:Clever tactic

[Rader]

It's scary, when you think of who owns NBC. Or ClearChannel owning almost all the radio stations. Laws being passed to squash Internet Radio. Laws prohibiting private use of air waves. Hell, there's even postage regulations to squash the little guys but give the big guys advantages.

At least the internet is still free...oh wait.

Re:One day...

[frp001]

Mmmm... maybe this would be the appropriate moment to recount once again.
Anyway DMCA was not Bush...

But whois thefreeworld.net?

[ianweeks]

Registrant:
Linux MM, c/o Conectiva Inc.
R. Tocantins 89
Cristo Rei
80050430, Curitiba PR
BR
Created on: 07-AUG-01
Expires on: 07-AUG-06
Last Updated on: 07-AUG-01

Administrative Contact:
van Riel, Rik
Linux MM, c/o Conectiva Inc.
R. Tocantins 89
Cristo Rei
80050430, Curitiba PR
BR
+55 41 360 2600

Re:But whois thefreeworld.net?

[Anonymous Coward]

i vote for stabbing

Re:But whois thefreeworld.net?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is the point of posting pointless bitches about posts? What difference does it make if somebody posted the whois information? You probably didn't even think to just ignore the post. So why the fuck even waste our bandwidth posting drivel we don't care about.

Re:But whois thefreeworld.net?

[lovebyte]

Yes, but read this sentence on thefreeworld.net site:
* acknowledge that by downloading the data outside of the European Union you are performing an act of importation.

I think it clearly means that the site is in the E.U. Moreover, netcraft says that it is hosted by planet online which is based in the UK, AFAIK. So the owner is in the US, the site in the EU.

Re:But whois thefreeworld.net?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that the owner is in Brasil, not US. You know, that BR abbreviation and +55 phone prefix...

Re:But whois thefreeworld.net?

[lovebyte]

You are right, it's Brazil not US. Sorry.

Re:But whois thefreeworld.net?

[morie]

Isn't everywhere outside Europe the U.S.? Sometimes sure seems so, since many americans seem to think there are only two countries: U.S. and "other", often "Europe"

Re:But whois thefreeworld.net?

[Anonymous Coward]

... where "Europe" == Paris, because that's where the US tourists go when they go to "Europe"...

Re:But whois thefreeworld.net?

[clarkc3]

So the owner is in the US, the site in the EU.

looks like owner is in Brazil, notice the BR in the registrant's name - or just do a lookup on the city name and you come up with a bunch of brazilian websites

Re:But whois thefreeworld.net?

[klep]

You mean this slashdot user?:

http://yro.slashdot.org/~Rik%20van%20Riel/

Oops

[KlomDark]

This wasn't supposed to go here, instead into the guys journal about needing help with sendmail. Sorry!

Slashdot Editors please read this

[Anonymous Coward]

I ask a simple request. I want it so when you click a linked story in slashdot it puts a cookie on your hard drive. After that you are allowed to post a comment in the acompanying thread. That would hopefully cut down on all the fuckin idiots who insist on refusing to read a story and post their idiotic opinions without even having a glimmer of an idea what the story is about.

Re:Slashdot Editors please read this

[Anonymous Coward]

what then can we do about the idiots that just sit here and complain?

I say send them to the DC area.

Re:Slashdot Editors please read this

[carlos_benj]

I haven't taken the time to read your comment yet, but feel compelled to take you to task for violating the DMCA and the ASPCA and a duck.

Re:Slashdot Editors please read this

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea, but it's easily circumvented. All anyone would have to do is click the link for the story, hit the back button (or maybe open it in a separate window), and then comment posting would be enabled. There's no way to make someone actually read the story before posting.

Re:Slashdot Editors please read this

[Rader]

and if it's slashdotted?

This is just FUD.

[gmiller123456]

This is exactly the same form of FUD we've all come to hate, it's just based on law rather than technology this time. There is no way a kernel patch can violate the DMCA for the simple fact that the Linux kernel doesn't enforce any type of copy protection.

There are enough problems with the DMCA that we don't need to make things up. If stories like this become commonplace, then lawmakers will soon ignore anyone who opposes the DMCA because they'll automatically assume they're acting on FUD and not the facts.

Please, PLEASE make an update to this article stating it's just FUD. PLEASE!

Re:This is just FUD.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the GPL a type of copy protection? ;-)

Re:This is just FUD.

[rootofevil]

uh no thats exactly wrong. if the kernel doesnt enforce any DRM, then any process written into the kernel to take advantage of DRM-protected material DOES voilate the DMCA.

Re:This is just FUD.

[Scarblac]

There is no way a kernel patch can violate the DMCA for the simple fact that the Linux kernel doesn't enforce any type of copy protection.

Doing it like this is just prudent. Why should someone from Europe have to know all the details of US law, weigh the chances of it being a violation, when non-US people have already gone to jail over it and there's the option of not distributing it to Americans in the first place?

Re:This is just FUD.

[m94mni]

The problem is not copy protection in the Linux kernel itself. The problem is instead that the document provides detailed descriptions of vulnerabilities in deployed systems.

Thus, it gives you information you can use to break into these systems, bypassing their "rights management". More info in the thread from last year here.

Re:This is just FUD.

[surprise_audit]

...for the simple fact that the Linux kernel doesn't enforce any type of copy protection.

And there you have one very good reason for all the supporters of the DMCA to intensely dislike Linux - it doesn't enforce any copy protection. And even if it did, there'd soon be patches to the config scripts to make it de-selectable when building a kernel.

Re:This is just FUD.

[ajs]

Ding! This is the correct answer. Yes, telling people about security holes is a DMCA violation under every interpretation of the law that I've seen (other than the cursory, "it only covers copying mp3s d00d!")

Please mod up the parent.

Re:This is just FUD.

[fireweaver]

Not FUD. I see it as an intentional effort to point out what a ridiculous piece of shit-headed crapola this particular retarded bit of bought-and-paid-for legislation actually is. Broadly interpreted, the DMCA effectively makes criminals out of just about anybody who uses a computer for just about any reason. I guess embedded devices without a network connection might be excluded, but IANAL.
The folks who wrote it obviously were not thinking of the consequences of thier actions (or were paid to write it that way by thier corporate constituients), and the folks who voted it into law need to be fitted with perspex belly-buttons so they can see where they are going -- after they are voted out of office.

Re:This is just FUD.

[Dalcius]

Be careful how you word it. Correct me if I have anything wrong here...

"If the kernel doesn't enforce any DRM", in my mind, doesn't break the DMCA simply because it's a passive act, it involves no "breaking". However, I don't trust our government to agree with me.

Re:This is just FUD.

[Dalcius]

Oh, Bruce Perens, where are you?!

Re:This is just FUD.

[Thomas Charron]

Next time, actually read the law. The DMCA is VERY broad. Sounds to me like your extent of reading on it was the name, and not the contents of the act itself.

The DMCA makes it illegal to publish any sort of information that provides data relating to any sort of bug that could be potentially exploited. This was, IMHO, added to prevent people from writing applications that would allow individuals to circumvent applications that where protecting copywrited materials, but it's all in the wording.

Re:This is just FUD.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Doing it like this is just prudent.

Actually, doing it like this is just an embarrassing stunt performed in an effort to get media attention.

I say keep software out of politics and vice versa.

(Goodbye, karma. It was nice knowing you.)

Re:This is just FUD.

[SiliconEntity]

Next time, actually read the law. The DMCA is VERY broad. Sounds to me like your extent of reading on it was the name, and not the contents of the act itself.

The DMCA makes it illegal to publish any sort of information that provides data relating to any sort of bug that could be potentially exploited.

In that case, can you point to where in the DMCA it says this? You might want to take a look at my earlier post, where I quoted the relevant part of the DMCA and showed how it would not apply to a Linux kernel patch. Please enlighten us.

Re:This is just FUD.

[ameoba]

In short, the whole hoopla about the changelog violating the DMCA is just a publicity stunt / protest action. Nobody is going to go to court for saying "joystick driver is buggy", (microsoft's explainations of security patches is equally vague) but it provides an excellent vehicle for showing the potential absurdity of the law, as it stands.

It reminds me of when I took driver's ed. The instructor explained that a major intersection was designed in such a way that it was IMPOSSIBLE to legally go from northbound State St. to northbound Shoultes Rd. even though that was the most common way to go through the intersection (and was required to get to the highschool).

In this case it was pointing out a case where a normal activity being against the law was an indication of a design flaw in the intersection; with teh changelog, it's pointing out that an otherwise normal activity being against the law is showing design flaws in the law.

Re:This is just FUD.

[Elwood P Dowd]

You are exactly wrong. If I have copyrighted materials on my computer (and since copyright is automatic in the US, I do.) and then someone tells you how to break into my computer, they have violated the DMCA. The Linux kernel is an access control device. Everyone agrees. That's the law.

I guarantee you, we'd all be happy to keep politics out of software. Unfortunately, that's completely impossible with or without the DMCA. Copyright is sufficient to bring politics into the software.

Re:This is just FUD.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If I have copyrighted materials on my computer (and since copyright is automatic in the US, I do.) and then someone tells you how to break into my computer, they have violated the DMCA.

That's wrong. The law defines an "access control device" as a "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work." [1201(a)(3)(B), p. 553] That doesn't mean anything that stands between you and somebody else's copyrighted works is an access control device; that definition would be unreasonably broad and would never be applied in court. The question becomes whether the system or device in question-- the "technological measure"-- is intended to control access to a work, or whether it incidentally controls access. If it incidentally controls access, it's not an access control device. So circumventing it is not prima facie illegal under the DMCA.

Re:This is just FUD.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Say what? In absolutely every regard, all of the changes discussed in this patch are for the single purpose of controlling access to content on my computer. If I do as little as a "chmod 600" on some of my bad poetry, that is intended to control access to a work. If someone tells you how to use a joystick driver to break into my computer, run arbitrary code, and thus read my poetry, they have violated the law under the DMCA. Tell me how I'm wrong.

Re:This is just FUD.

[King of the World]

Hewlett Packard threatens security researcher under DMCA

Re:One day...

[flyneye]

uh,dopey,the DCMA came under the CLINTON administration. Perhaps if you actually had a handle on U.S. politics your humor wouldnt just signify your ignorance

Need a Website

[attobyte]

We need a website that shows all the people that voted yes for the DMCA. So it will be easy to vote this November.

atto

Re:Need a Website

[NumberSyx]

As I understand it, there is far too many bills every year for either the House or the Senate to actually debate every single one of them. So what they do is once it is out of committee, it goes on the calender, if nobody raises any objections to it, they have a voice vote on it, which is very quick, but there is no official record on who voted and how, only that it passed or not. I could be wrong, so please correct me if I am. This is more or less how the DMCA was passed. Anyone who was sitting at the time should be held accountable, if for no other reason than they didn't raise any objections, force a public debate and a formal vote.

Re:Need a Website

[Happy Monkey]

It's easy. vote against incumbents.

Re:Need a Website

[Moloch666]

This seems like a good idea. Some of us aren't very politically informed.

Re:Need a Website

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying there are no challengers running who are proponents of the DMCA? Pull you head out of the sand.

Re:Need a Website

[Chaswell]

If I remember correctly the DMCA was passed with a voice vote and so you can only find out who commented and not necessarily who voted for or against.

I really wish we had an "open source" government where every dollar they spend and every comment they make was indexed and easy to correlate.

Re:Need a Website

[alan_d_post]

I believe it passed unopposed. Leaving you three options:

1) spoil your vote
2) vote for someone other than the incumbent
3) don't even show up to vote

Re:Need a Website

[fireweaver]

Jusr remember that politicians are like diapers
and need to be changed often for the same reason.

Re:Need a Website

[Anonymous Coward]

I plan to, but thanks to the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Bill, I doubt they'll be easy to dislodge.

Re:Need a Website

[Scratch-O-Matic]

every comment they make was indexed and easy to correlate.

Slightly OT comment: if you catch C-Span, or some other video record of the House or Senate floor, listen for the end of someone's short remarks where they ask for permission to "revise and extend" their remarks. This means they will insert additional written remarks into the official record. As far as I know, there is no way to tell from the written record what was actually said on the floor and what was added in written form later. They could make a bland 60 second remark, then insert an aggressive 20 minute speech for the benefit of the folks back home.

Re:Need a Website

[Blkdeath]

It's easy. vote against incumbents.

There's a saying in Canada, heard frequently come election time; "We don't vote people into office, we vote people out of office."

Go figure. :)

Re:Need a Website

[sqlrob]

Considering DMCA was unanimous voice vote, you have a better chance voting against the incumbent.

Re:Need a Website

[mark_lybarger]

i find it very disturbing that most officials are very quiet about this issue. they'll talk taxes, and homeland security left and right, but never really raise this issue. you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Re:Need a Website

[Bobzibub]

Wow. That is terribly untransparent; it is no wonder that these representatives are viewed as unrepresentative. Is there any reason not to ban voice voting?

Cheers,
-b

Re:Need a Website

[Cramer]

Bull. Voting is electronic and recorded! Consult the Congressional Register to see who voted (or didn't) for what.

Re:Need a Website

[Rader]

They never talked about my pothole in front of my driveway either...

The majority of America doesn't give a rats ass about DCMA...DAMC...what's it called?

yet...

Re:Need a Website

[Rev Snow]

Better make that two options.
The new electronic voting machines
in my area do not allow spoiled
ballots.

Re:Need a Website

[MrResistor]

That's pretty much my policy. Unless they've done at least 2 things that have impressed me I vote against them.

It's not hard to impress me, either. All they have to do is actually represent the wishes of their constituents! (That last sentence was aimed directly at Diane Feinstein)

Re:Need a Website

[ratamacue]

there is far too many bills every year for either the House or the Senate to actually debate every single one of them

Aha, yet another benefit of Big Government: incompetency, along with its twin brother, inefficiency.

Next time we have a problem we think is solvable only by government, let's remember to think twice. Our current bloat of a government is built on the special interests of people just like me and you: people who don't consider that somebody, somewhere, doesn't want to be forced into adopting the special interests of other people. The solution? Government needs to go on a diet. See this website if you like the sound of this.

Re:Need a Website

[mark_lybarger]

come on, national represenatives aren't responsible for your local potholes (unless you live right off I-80). that's local folks, most likely at the state level.

the majority of amerians don't now what the dmca is because it's not news worthy, people aren't dying over it, and there's nothing sexy about it. what it does do is infringe on first ammendment rights, but people really don't care about that these days as long as we've got our homeland security in place

Re:Need a Website

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's a good idea.
Suddenly, these popular candidates will not get that extra 123 votes that they didn't need and nothing will have changed.

The problem is that nobody seems to care...

Re:Need a Website

[Lugae]

http://www.vote-smart.org

Click on "Voting Records" ->State -> Your Senator -> Telecommunications 1998 -> "DMCA Passage"

The vote was unanimous, though

Re:Need a Website

[glindsey]

...if nobody raises any objections to it, they have a voice vote on it, which is very quick...

Question: why do we still even use voice votes? We live in the 21st century now. There's no reason why we couldn't outfit the chambers of the House and the Senate with ludicrously simple "Yea" and "Nay" buttons for each senator/representative that will tally votes for a count. I mean, we're talking 1980's technology here; a high school science student could set it up. It would be quick, and we would have a record of how people voted. All of this "gee, it sounds like the 'yea's have it" is bull.

Re:Need a Website

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

One would hope that legislation as important as this was passed with alot more consideration then a voice vote. The DMCA can cover a very large area depending on your interpretation (note: I have not read the DMCA, I hate legalese). Just goes to show the kind of work the people who supposedly vote for us do.

Re:Need a Website

[jazman_777]

Jusr remember that politicians are like diapers and need to be changed often for the same reason.

Also: if "pro" is "for", and "con" is "against", then the opposite of progress is congress.

Re:Need a Website

[jazman_777]

don't even show up to vote

Contrary to popular superstition, this is a legitimate option. You signal your refusal to accept _any_ of the given "choices" as deserving of your support. Why don't they put "none of the above is acceptable" on ballots? That could make things interesting.

Re:Need a Website

[susano_otter]

In high school, I was taught that the U.S. Government was designed from the very beginning to be bloated and inefficient. That a government ponderous and slow to act was a government whose tyranny would founder in bureaucracy. That the source of our current woes is the failure of the founders to predict and account for the political influence of corporations.

Considering what Valenti can do under the current system, do you really want to give him an optimized, streamlined, super-efficient government to play with?

Re:Need a Website

[susano_otter]

No it just means that the vote-spoiling is implemented in software, instead of hardware.

Re:Need a Website

[starling]

Nonono. Don't vote - it only encourages them.

Re:Need a Website

[Brendan Byrd]

I don't think it includes the DMCA (since it was passed in 1998), but ACLU's Scorecard has some nice info on who voted for who (at least on their issues). The EFF really needs something like this. Voting may not be the best way to get an issue across, but at least it's one way that we have an option of using.

Re:Need a Website

[SquadBoy]

Just do what I do and vote straight ticket Libertarian. That way you get rid of all the greedy SOBs

Re:Need a Website

[Eric Damron]

"The majority of America doesn't give a rats ass about DCMA...DAMC...what's it called?"

It's called the DMCA. It is easy to remember: Despicable, Malicious, Corporate Agenda

Re:Need a Website

[msblack]

You gotta love that logic: replace all the Congressmen who voted for the DMCA with someone new that would have voted for it given the chance.

Re:Need a Website

[TGK]

Unless those votes are in a certain county in Florida.....

Never underestimate the power of a single vote... Andrew Johnson didn't.

Re:Need a Website

[xtremex]

Although I am right wing, I don't always agree with the entire republican/conservative party. WHile W is not my favorite (I voted for Buchanan), Congress is a majority left-wing congress. Bush can't do shit really. All he has the power to do is veto, and SUGGEST to congress, which of course they'll immediately vote against. If it was up to Bush, we would be in Iraq already. (Which I support).

Re:Need a Website

[NumberSyx]

Bull. Voting is electronic and recorded! Consult the Congressional Register to see who voted (or didn't) for what.

Alright big boy, show me.

Re:Need a Website

[Jobe_br]

What you learned in high school is absolutely correct. Our founding fathers purposefully created a system of bureaucracy to prevent the gov't. from being able to act swiftly.

The problem with corporations is their status as "individuals" which allows them to lobby. I have yet to hear anything *good* result from this, maybe somebody could provide an example where allowing corporations to behave as individuals under the law benefits society?

Cheers.

Re:Need a Website

[susano_otter]

I'm sure that the corporations themselves can provide many examples of the kind you're looking for ;P

HTH. HAND!

Re:Need a Website

[schmink182]

CowboyNeal!!!

Re:Need a Website

[Ozymandias_KoK]

You mean he DID underestimate the power of the single vote I assume?

Re:Need a Website

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the other side of the coin is no better. Lets put someone back in office that voted against the people and for corporations. Your logic is screwed, not atto's

Re:Need a Website

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean? Politicians are ALWAYS full of shit!

Re:Need a Website

[2short]

The House and Senate chambers are in fact outfitted with exactly such a system.

If a bill is passed by voice vote, it tells you that there is a significant majority who support it and who think their support will do them more political damage than the other guys oposition. Voice votes don't pass bills that should fail, but they certainly conceal votes that (IMO) should be recorded.

Re:Need a Website

[2short]

You could of course ask your representative what their position is; they may have abstained. Congressional procedures throw in a lot of (lame) quirks, but basically follow Roberts Rules of Order whereby voice votes are only conclusive if unanimous, so the procedure goes something like: Have a voice vote. If the outcome is clear, but not unanimous, the chair asks the dissenters to abstain. Have another voice vote. Dissenters can still refuse to abstain, and force a hand-count or whatever, but there's not much point except to be a pain in the ass.
Don't you people go to town meeting? :)

Re:One day...

[Quixote]

You're right. The signature at the bottom of the DMCA is:



(signed) All American Citizens


In a democracy, you are responsible for the actions of those you elect.
There is still time. Your elected representatives will pay attention to you, the American voters, only for the next 3 weeks or so. Mobilize if you can; otherwise suffer 2 more years of the same but please don't complain!.

paradoxes

[kipple]

1. I wonder if any lawyer can make a lawsuit out of this. If they do, they must have read "The Thing", and thus can be jailed. Why a lawsuit? I don't know, but lawsuits in the US seem to be the only way to say something or prove it.
2. I'm sure RedHat folks will be called terrorists. After all, the "Red" in the Hat (and the fact that they are Kernel HACKERS) says it all...

smile, it's fun :)

Re:paradoxes

[kipple]

I thought that only cops and/or FBI agents hacking russian computers were exempted from violating laws.. maybe the categories will become more. Cool.

Bill: Dear son, after having told me Where do You Want to Go Today, now What do You Want to Be Tomorrow?
Bill's son: A RIAA agent!
Bill: D'oh..

Re:paradoxes

[AllynM]

"1. I wonder if any lawyer can make a lawsuit out of this. If they do, they must have read "The Thing", and thus can be jailed."

A very good point indeed. I can see it now: "I find the defendant, and everyone else in this room, including myself, GUILTY!".

I know what it is about...

[RedWolves2]

I could tell you but then I would have to kill you!

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

oh no that god refrence will disappear soon too... the fricking liberals want to take away those rights as well.

we are just to love only big brother....

Google cache

[chicoy]

Next thing you know, Google will get banned because of its cache =)

Hi! I'm Joe ...

[thriver]

... and I live in a free country ... NOT!

Re:Hi! I'm Joe ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! I'm a Canadian - I can read it if I want! Of course, I'm waiting for the government-mandated French translation to come out...

Re:Hi! I'm Joe ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the USA - Land of the free, bah! The US is a land populated by packs of Hyena lawyers with no natural enemy, and politicians who are like ticks on the huge bodies of the corporations. It seems most Americans nowadays would rather be rich than free.
But at least you're rich; here, in the largest of the scandinavian countries, we're neither rich nor free as the elite have long ago perfected the feudal system..

Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada will soon come and take over USA, no worries.
We'll just hide all of our domination plans behind the DMCA. "Umm... Sorry, USA. We can't show you these... They could be used, to exploit security holes, by americans. *snicker snicker*"

Re:Canada

[Jim Norton]

Yeah, we got some great bombing practice out of your Presidents' home about 190 years ago!

Re:Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada has problems of its own. Click here for an example.

Re:Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. That's bullshit.

Still, I can see how you would mentally pair "Ayn Rand" and "hate", especially if you're not rich, sane, healthy or white.

New Kernel patch?

[Nighttime]

That patch was released on 2002-08-20, nearly two months ago, and was available through RH's up2date system so many US users will have updated to it. It's only now being reported as news about the DCMA restrictions?

Re:New Kernel patch?

[Chris Pimlott]

That patch was released on 2002-08-20, nearly two months ago, and was available through RH's up2date system so many US users will have updated to it. It's only now being reported as news about the DCMA restrictions?

Um... of course. Do you think a joystick driver bugfixes should normally be front page news?

Re:New Kernel patch?

[Nighttime]

Do you think a joystick driver bugfixes should normally be front page news?

No I don't. I was, however, commenting on the fact that Redhat's updated kernel has been available for download for nearly two months and only now people have noticed the DCMA restrictions bit.

Re:New Kernel patch?

[Chris Pimlott]

No I don't. I was, however, commenting on the fact that Redhat's updated kernel has been available for download for nearly two months and only now people have noticed the DCMA restrictions bit.

But the contraversy is over the description, not the patch. Or was the description previous available sans DMCA doom and gloom?

Re:It happened with full support of the REPUBLICAN

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be in a different US than you, from my vantage point, there's no practical difference between Republicans and Democrats, only a difference in their rhetoric.

It's like this:

I walk up to you on the street and make you an offer. I'll give you a choice, do you want me to stab you in the right eye with a pencil, or the left eye. Make your choice, it's a free country! You too can make a difference!

Re:It happened with full support of the REPUBLICAN

[Guspaz]

I'd sooner vote librarian.

Re:One day...

[rootofevil]

sadly, we dont actually live in a democracy anymore.

Re:One day...

[RebelTycoon]

The DMCA was most useful for the ENTERTAINMENT industry. That special interest group is mostly a Democratic lobby.

It was Clinton... If anything, Bush might not have let it go since the Republicans get much more money from "real" industries that got screwed by this law.

I rant because I can.

Patch explanation!

[Anonymous Coward]

The thefreeworld.net lawyer has informed us that we need a warning! So... if you are under the U.S. jurisdiction or find this explanation offensive, please don't read it. Thank you!

Updated kernel packages are now available which fix an oops in the i810 3D kernel code. This kernel update also fixes a difficult to trigger race in the dcache (filesystem cache) code, as well as some potential security holes, although we are not currently aware of any exploits.

The 2.4.18-5 kernel introduced some safety checks in the VM subsystem that were triggered when exiting an X session while using 3D acceleration with the Intel i810/i815 chipset. Additionally, there was a difficult to trigger race in the dcache of the file system subsystem.

This kernel update addresses both of these issues.

In addition, there are fixes for potential security holes in the following drivers:

stradis
rio500
se401
usbvideo
apm

Finally, this kernel fixes a few files in the /proc file system which had the capability to expose kernel memory when abused.

All of the security issues found during an audit and none of them, at the time of this writing, have any known exploits.

We would like to thank Silvio Cesare, Stas Sergeev, Andi Kleen, Solar Designer, and others for their auditing work.

Re:Patch explanation!

[jafiwam]

If I understand this correctly, describing how the security or encryption can be breeched in plain english is illegal under the DMCA?

What does that do for works of fiction, i.e. Cryptonomicon or anything by William Gibson?

What a crazy law.

Re:Patch explanation!

[Coke in a Can]

Why is it that the warning seems strangely similar to that of goatse.cx?

Re:One day...

[oniony]

Crap. Just because its a democracy doesn't mean you can't complain. Just becaues you don't vote doesn't mean you can't complain.

Any individual's vote makes no difference. Elected democracy doesn't represent the true belief of the populous, except whene the overall view is particularly strong.

People vote for who they prefer out of who they think has a reasonable chance of winning, otherwise they believe it is a wasted vote.

If the elected party is doing stupid things, you can complain, whether you voted for them or not...or didn't vote at all.

Is this really prudent?

[sunking2]

Considering all of the linux distros are already in an uphill battle, is it really wise for redhat to be taking this on? Short term this can only hurt sales. Afterall, why should I pay for support when there is a chance that Redhat will refuse to give me what I'm paying for simply because they want to prove some point.

Choose your battles, this one just seems silly at this point in time.

Re:Is this really prudent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it silly that the simple act of trying to *comply* with the letter of a law like the DMCA comes across as "taking this on" or "proving a point"? It goes to show why it's in their interests and yours to deal with it: who can do business in the long term while having to deal with something so absurd as the DMCA?

Re:Is this really prudent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not?

What do you think the U.S. government (in hand with the media companies and Microsoft, the other two major law-making bodies in the U.S.) will do when they realize that they'll actually get away with the DMCA, that no one will challenge it? Why, they'll pile on more laws of course. The DMCA was a big win for all the parties involved, but they're not going to stop attempting to oppress U.S. citizens just because they've managed to cover some of their bases. They'll keep going until architectures like Palladium won't allow you to view a webpage about the security of your own operating system without it being properly signed and stamped with approval from Microsoft. They'll keep going until -your- media player will only play -their- media, they way they want you to use it. And they'll keep going until, ultimately, they have more control over your computer than you do, and they'll ensure you have no legal rights left to question said control. That's the way things area headed, so why not challenge them? Why not try to raise at least -some- awareness, no matter how small?

If you had a brain in your head you'd realize that paying for support might actually help RedHat contest said law one of these days, and that proving a point is the best thing that they could possibly be doing.

RH Reasoning

[HappyPhunBall]

Apparently RH is respecting the copyright of the people who discovered the flaws and chose to license the text under the "TheFreeWorld" blanket to prevent the authors from being accused of distributing potentially infringing documentation in the US. Read the article at The Register, it is almost as poorly written as this post but according to this excerpt:

The document has been copyrighted, and the authors have chosen to restrict its distribution, and to use Thefreeworld.net licence as the mechanism for doing so. Note that it is the copyright, rather than fear of the DMCA, that has forced Red Hat to join in.

RH is only doing this to protect the authors who for whatever reason chose to copyright the document. Possibly the wish to make a point as well concerning the idiocy of the DMCA.

Re:RH Reasoning

[James The Gent]

Anything written by you is automatically copyright you. You can then use that copyright to alter the way that your work can be legally distributed.

The reason that Red Hat is publishing the documentation in that way that it is is because to do otherwise would be to break the copyright on the document. Which would put them in violation of a copyright.

Ironic dontcha think.

What if...

[Markus Ingvarsson]

What if someone forces you to read it?

You know, this could be used to "frame" someone;
Print it out (don't look at it!), then, when your victim least expects it - pull it up and say "read"!
Go to the nearest police station and say that you captured a "terrorist". :-)

Lucky me, I live in sweeeeeden..

Re:What if...

[Bastian]

Hey, ya need a spouse? 'cos I just read the document and think I should maybe move to the EU quickly, before the cops catch me.

Re:What if...

[bmf033069]

Dear Congressperson...Please find the enclosed...

Re:What if...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me killing joke of Monthy Python.

Re:What if...

[Art Tatum]

Nah, the police wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about. They'd just ask you to leave them alone so they can get some work done. Realistically, the DMCA is never invoked unless some corporation files suit.

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never did, Eisenstein.
The United States of America is a representative republic, not a democracy.

As grandpa Simpson sagely observed "This is the greatest country in the world, we have a whole system to ensure that people like you can never become president!"


And as far as the Bush bashers go -- what the hell did you expect? This is exactly what happened last time Bush was in the Whitehouse. We where at war with the Arabs and the economy was in the crapper.

The gist...

[KillerBob]

Thankfully, I'm in Canada and not bound by retarded US laws. /. is, though, so I'm not gonna post verbatin what the patch is.

The gist of this security patch is to fix driver vulnerabilities. It fixes several of them, not one of them is exploitable by a remote user. They all require the hardware in question to be connected to exploit the driver vulnerability, and they all involve allowing people to write to kernel memory space. In other words... they could be used to nuke a linux box by a local user (why not just 3-finger salute, I know not), but the moment you reboot the problem is fixed anyway.

Re:The gist...

[Craig Davison]

I think the problem is exploitable if you're logged in as a local user, which could be through some kind of remote access such as ssh, telnet, or your favourite httpd bug that yields local user access (but not root).
This is not equivalent to the "three-finger salute". If you were physically at the box, you could just kick it or unplug it if you wanted.

Missing the point?

[Zocalo]

It seems to me that a lot of people seem to think that Red Hat is doing this because they are running scared of the DMCA. Couple of points here:

Q. Which kernel hacker does Red Hat employ, outside of the US?
A. Alan Cox.

Q. Why won't Alan Cox visit the US because "the chances of his arrest are none zero"?
A. Use of the DMCA to indict Sklyarov.

It seems much more likely that Alan Cox is, with Red Hat's full support, taking a very good swipe at some of the more ludicrous aspects of the DMCA. Basically, what they are implying that this could lead to is the situation where a major security flaw can be disclosed to the entire world, except for the US, because of the DMCA. The obvious upshot of that is that every man and his dog outside of the US could have access to the knowledge required to shaft servers in the US, and the sysadmins in the US can't do a thing about it because of the DMCA.

The words "hoist", "own" and "petard" spring to mind. ;)

Re:Missing the point?

[patter]

Basically, what they are implying that this could lead to is the situation where a major security flaw can be disclosed to the entire world, except for the US, because of the DMCA. The obvious upshot of that is that every man and his dog outside of the US could have access to the knowledge required to shaft servers in the US, and the sysadmins in the US can't do a thing about it because of the DMCA.

Which exactly contradicts the type of reasoning that restricted export of 128 bit encryption to the potential enemies of the US (like the UK, we know those evil bastards were up to no good with that tecnology - joke).

You can't improve security without the ability to disclose fully potential vulnerabilities, openly and without fear of reprisal from a government too technically ignorant to understand what they just passed as law.

Good one US congress...

Status Quo...

[twoslice]

Who actually reads the fine print when they download something or access a web site???

prOn sites: The button that says I am under 18 get me outta here! Who would ever click this button???

Micro$oft Eula: ...turn over my first born... missing appendages...soul....I am willing to bet a couple of people have clicked yes to this! poor dudes.

and now we have...

Redhat: Don't click on the button if you are not a U.S Citi.... Click!

Re:Status Quo...

[sirgoran]

You forgot one.

In the condom isle at the local market.
They sell a condom for "The Larger Gent."

With that on the shelf are you going to buy anything but that?

-Goran

I'm not a corporation

[Quila]

So what I think doesn't count much. It's sad that if one plane had to miss on 9/11 it was the one that could have done some good.

Re:I'm not a corporation

[Anonymous Coward]

nobody would have been home shithead
ps. the PA plane was heading for the CIA
pps. die

Re:I'm not a corporation

[liposuction]

Seriously. At this rate, you'll ALWAYS be this retarded.

Re:I'm not a corporation

[Quila]

WTC1: Killed innocents in the four-digit range
WTC2: ditto
Pentagon: Killed hundreds, mostly just average-joes working in civil service jobs
Capitol: Would have killed some innocents, plus the source of many of the problems in the country today

I'd say that if one had to miss, it should have been one of the WTC planes. Would slashdotters be weeping over the demise of Hollings or Berman? These are the people selling your rights out to the RIAA and MPAA.

What a horrible way to make a point.

[Anonymous Coward]

First, the poster copyrights his work and chooses not to distribute to the US.

Fine. Nothing new, just his "right" under the most basic of copyright law known the world over. Always has been, and likely always will be.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DMCA. UNLESS, you claim Linux itself is the violation.

Sending the copy into the US does not violate the DMCA in any way. It violates basic copyright.

The worse way of showing a law is stupid is to, first, demonstrate a clue, any clue, on what it actually does. It makes you look like fool, and it turns people off that might actually have made the right decisions had you not made a joke of your argument.

If Linux is the violation, then why hasn't our fairly abusive legal system made any move to removed it from the market? Fact is, Linux, per se, doesn't violate DMCA. At best, it can be used to build a circumvention device, it is not itself such a device.

Please, stop being stupid. We don't need you making our fight against Corportist intersts any harder than they already are.

Re:What a horrible way to make a point.

[ConceptJunkie]

But don't you know... anything that COULD be used to circumvent copy protection is now illegal.

Please check your brain at a government approved collection center.

Federal agents will arrive shortly with flamethrowers, please provide them with access to all paper, pens and other writing materials. We don't want to burn down your house, but we will if we have to.

Re:DMCA == Bible?

[L0neW0lf]

The Bible is not about oppressing anyone into obedience, and it's obvious that you just decided this was a perfect forum for your anti-Christian sentiments. The Bible is a historical record, and an individual can freely accept or reject its teachings, just as they could hundreds of years ago (though in some societies, the Church did indeed use its power as a form of oppression; not having lived in medieval times, or the Spanish Inquisition, I refuse to take the blame for this).

Your comparison is lousy, and not even close to how the DMCA works. Stick to good anaologies, rather than opinions. You'll go far.

Better comment

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest that when you personally read a story, that someone with a hammer come to your house and smash your computer to bits so that you can't post again anywhere.

If you buy a new computer, the same guy will smash that computer and have sex with your sister too.

Broadcast-2000

[thor]

why are the bcast sources on this list?

Well thank god I live in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just glad that being in the UK we have politicians who won't go around creating really stupid laws to do with copyright / encryption etc.....oh wait... ;)

Comming to Europe too

[pointwood]

In case you don't know it, we will be getting something similar to the DMCA in Europe soon :(

You can read more here.

Re:Comming to Europe too

[Anonymous Coward]

HA!

Tek ZAT, you silly English Kniggggets!
Begone, or we zhall insult you again!

Re:Use the source?

[WEFUNK]

Still, as a principal, it is a bit silly to disallow a text describing the change but allow the source which IS the change. Stupid law.

I agree. The DMCA should be updated to disallow any patching of security holes what-so-ever.

It doesn't matter if the law will totally discourage effective security measures by outlawing any discussion or implementation of flaws or improvements. As long as we have the DMCA to protect us, any attempted security measure is good enough even if it's just some text on a screen that say "don't look here under penalty of the DMCA". Of course we'll need to gouge out your eyes as potential copyright circumvention devices, but that's a small price to pay to guarantee our security, our safety, and our liberty.

Linux kernel doesn't enforce.....

[oliverthered]

How about encrypted filing systems, rights management in the filing system, user privilages (that prevent you from copying things in the memory).

the Linux kernel does enforce copy protection, and you could create a patch to get around a lot of it (at least to increase the users rights)

Re:More correctly, a human readable explaination..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Uncompiled source code legally counts as a literary work, and is under the same laws as an english description.

No can do.

[AftanGustur]

We need a website that shows all the people that voted yes for the DMCA.

It was a closed/secret vote..

so why have linux companies in the US ?

[eurostar]

here is the time to have a true "world company"

let's base debian in antarctica...

Re:so why have linux companies in the US ?

[Anonymous Coward]

or the moon, heh. :)
bypass the whole commercial moon shot thing and go right to Free. whatever that means. :)
getting it to work would be a bitch, tho. unless you just have all the main mirrors update while the moon is in view. right.
it could work. :)

Ok then, can someone explain

[beleg777]

Ok, this looks to me to be the same as any other patch documentation. My impression is that the reasons it's illegal are the same sections and logic used to indight Skylarov. If I'm not mistaken in those two things, isn't all patch documentation illegal under the DMCA?

Quick word of commentary, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this were true by the letter of the law. This is exactly why we have been complaining for so long, because the law is overly broad, and restricts things that it obviously shouldn't. On the other hand, I didn't think it was so broad as to cover all security documentation.

Re:Ok then, can someone explain

[hol]

If I'm not mistaken in those two things, isn't all patch documentation illegal under the DMCA?


The Patch documentation is not so much, the patch actually documents the hole. One of the key issues here is that the fix in the patch exposes the original problem, and thus makes "circumvention of digital security" (haven't read it in a while, so going by memory here) possible. It's a question of whether all you need is to communicate the problem, or to document it. In the case of a source patch and docs, both are done, and it's lose-lose for the author, distributor, or whatever.

On another note - UCITA makes click-through license agreements legally binding in the US. So if law-enforcement cracked down on these people, they would have committed a felony as well. Court case should be interesting ...

Re:Ok then, can someone explain

[Unordained]

Isn't it only illegal under the DMCA if it relates, to, oh, the C in DMCA -- copyrights? The document may be copyrighted, and putting a license on it means that getting the document without agreeing to the license is circumvention in order to get to copyrighted material ... but the patch itself, documented kernel problems ... is, methinks, unlrelated to the DMCA. and if you read the register article, they pretty much think RedHat did this as a "joke" of sorts about the DMCA ... not out of actual fear.

Re:Ok then, can someone explain

[Alsee]

Isn't it only illegal under the DMCA if it relates, to... copyrights?

It's illegal if it explains to someone how to circumvent an access control device. The Linux kernal is an access control device. In the DeCSS court case DeCSS was never shown to have ever been used to circumvent access to any copyrighted work. The fact that there exists CSS controlling access somewhere, and that DeCSS *could* be used to circumvent it is enough it make it illegal.

The fact that a there exists a kernal somewhere that is contolling access to something is enough. Explaining the kernal bug to someone puts at risk that copyrighted something.

The DMCA doesn't outlaw "criminal activity", it outlaws anything that might make criminal activity possible.

-

Re:Ok then, can someone explain

[kscguru]

Now I'm reading this carefully...

It's perfectly legal for me to download the pre-patch kernel - probably from some archive somewhere. And it's perfectly legal for me to download the patched version. But, by running diff and creating my own patch, I've just discovered how to bypass the security. So just running diff is a criminal act?

The only way I see out of this is even worse: it would be illegal to have an unpatched kernel! Since an unpatched kernel could be diffed against a patched kernel and break the DMCA, the unpathced version must be illegal. Then, to enforce this, OS vendors would be able to require (a la the new MS EULAs) that you allow them to arbitrarily update the kernel without telling you.

The scary thing is, this all makes sense. Can anyone see another way out? (besides declaring the DMCA illegal - that one's easy!)

Re:Ok then, can someone explain

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

UCITA is a civil law, not criminal, and it certainly doesn't define any new felonies as far as I know.

Re:Ok then, can someone explain

[hol]

UCITA is a civil law, not criminal, and it certainly doesn't define any new felonies as far as I know.

Duh. You're absolutely right. Now that I have a paper bag over my head, can someone explain how it's interpreted in the courts when a civil law is broken in pursuit of evidence in a criminal case? Is that evidence still admissible (as in, lying in a click-through)?

Senate by Unanimous Consent , House by Voice

[GMontag]

http://www.dfc.org/dfc1/Active_Issues/graphic/grap hic.html

passed Senate by Unanimous Consent
(similar to voice vote in House)

passed House by Voice Vote

Re:Senate by Unanimous Consent , House by Voice

[cpeterso]

If they vote "by voice", are the individual votes documented anywhere? Is this just a ploy to pass something controversial, but then not be hold accountable for your votes?

Representative democracy in action..

Re:Senate by Unanimous Consent , House by Voice

[GMontag]

If they vote "by voice", are the individual votes documented anywhere? Is this just a ploy to pass something controversial, but then not be hold accountable for your votes?

Umm, your comment seems to be weighed a bit on the negative.

EVERY bill in the House gets a "voice vote". The Speaker or his acting Speaker calls for a vote, all in favor say "aye" all opposed say "nay".

The opinion of the chair calls the vote. If ANY member on the floor calls for "the yeas and nays" they have a recorded vote by electronic device. The electronic system replaced the "role call vote."

It was never constructed to be a slick/fast vote, with every vowel recorded, type system.

Representative democracy in action..

Yes, consult "Robert's Rules of Order" and the Rules of the House and Senate for further information.

It is the *license* of the patch . . .

[kfg]

that makes it illegal to release the information to US citizens. The patch code was written entirely by non US citizens outside of the US borders. In order to prevent the possible prosecution by the US government, ala Skylarov, they released under license terms that forbid divulging information about it.

*Redhat* is not the refuser here, they are simply bound by the terms of the author's *license.*

Now, let's do a little deductive work here while we're about it, shall we?

This isn't a "Linux" patch, it's "Redhat" patch. And what *Redhat* kernel developer has already shown a propensity for making socio-political statements with the license terms of his kernel patches regarding the DMCA?

Anyone care to go waaaaaaaaaay out on a limb and "guess" just who might have had a hand in this?

I'll give you three guesses, but if you don't get it in one you haven't been paying attention.

KFG

Re:Use the source?

[BESTouff]

Why ? The DeCSS case already proved that source code != free speech. So, you can distribute source code which tells what and where the flaw is, but not speak about it - Oh wait, the DeCSS case told us exactely the inverse ...

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

uhh.. hello.. Bush had nothing to do with this.. you need to thank the Congress that was under Clinton and also thank Clinton for signing the bill into law.

The point, why is it illegal

[Gerry Gleason]

Yes, you can figure it out from the source, and I think the court would have a hard time if the description was part of the patch (i.e. a comment) to claim that the comment violated the DMCA.

The point isn't even that anyone would be charged under the DMCA, but that under the language of the law, they could be. The underlying point is that disclosing security vulnerabilities and keeping current with their announcements are extremely common activities for any security professional doing his/her job.

That said, the whole exercise seems a bit lame and the article more or less says that straight out after leading in with a bit of sarcasm. It's not even the dumbest part of this law, but that's another story already beaten to death on /.

Re:One day...

[Belisarivs]

From 5 to -1, but retaining the Insightful tag. I don't know wether my faith is restored in the Slashdot moderation system or not . . .

Re:One day...

[bwalling]

There is still time. Your elected representatives will pay attention to you, the American voters, only for the next 3 weeks or so. Mobilize if you can; otherwise suffer 2 more years of the same but please don't complain!.

You can honestly say that? My elected officials will pay attention to me only during election season, and I'm not supposed to complain? Screw that. Democracy only works if you don't pay attention to what happens. We have the DMCA, the Patriot Act, corporate tax breaks out the wazoo, and politicians who are essentially puppets for the companies who paid to have them elected. You're right, I shouldn't complain.

Been done before

[mwm158]

HP and Dell did the same thing

Re:Use the source?

[neuroticia]

They want to make a point, but they don't want to actually harm the users that reside in the U.S. Apparently they hate U.S. citizens much less than the United States Government hates U.S. Citizens.

Go figure. ;)

-Sara

Let's see...

[jmv]

2002: New RedHat Kernel Patch Illegal to Explain to U.S. Users

2012: New RedHat Kernel Illegal to Explain to U.S. Users

2022: Engineering Illegal to Explain to U.S. Users

Re:Let's see...

[ReverendRyan]

2050: US Schools nolonger teach reading, writing, and 'rithmetic

2055: All US citizens must have their ears and eyes removed at birth

Re:Let's see...

[wbajzek]

That's not enough, someone may randomly have a thought that happens to have been thought before...

Re:Let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I was just thinking that....

Re:Let's see...

[Spaceman40]

2033: Moore's law reverses, as newer chip manufacturers get stupider exponentially...

Re:Let's see...

[ThinkingGuy]

2112: Attention all planets of the Solar Federation: We have assumed control.

Re:Use the source?

[gpinzone]

If that's the case, then it would be legal to distribute the DeCSS code as long as you don't tell anyone what it does.

This is absolutely silly

[Andy Dodd]

I don't recall the exact wording, but I'm positive the DMCA is intended to cover publishing vulnerabilities about *other people's software* - This is publishing information about THEIR OWN PRODUCT. Seems like someone is overreacting on this one to me.

Re:This is absolutely silly

[tweek]

The problem is that redhat doesn't OWN the kernel. The patch in question is specific to the linux kernel which redhat does NOT own.

It would then follow that they are publishing a vulnerability about Linus Torvalds' product.

Re:This is absolutely silly

[Scarblac]

This is publishing information about THEIR OWN PRODUCT.

No it isn't. The patch was written by independent developers. Red Hat employees in the US aren't allowed to read the explanation either. And they're not allowed to put it on their site because the license on the explanation doesn't allow this.

Re:This is absolutely silly

[Sloppy]

I don't recall the exact wording, but I'm positive the DMCA is intended to cover publishing vulnerabilities about *other people's software* - This is publishing information about THEIR OWN PRODUCT.

No, you don't understand who is being "protected" by DMCA here. It's not the software, it's the copyrighted content that uses the software as a technological measure to limit access.

Suppose you use Red Hat Linux on a machine where your stuff (stuff you own, not Red Hat) is stored. Your machine has a login prompt and requires a password. A person who doesn't know a your login name and password, cannot access your copyrighted work. Red Hat Linux is the "technological measure" that you decided to implement to limit access. All the necessary conditions for DMCA to apply, are present.

If someone (anyone, including Red Hat, other than you) "traffics in a device" that bypasses the technological measure, then you -- not Red Hat -- are the party who, according to DMCA, has just been violated. Red Hat, by talking about their own product, risks being sued by their own customers who use that product as a technological measure to limit access.

Recall the DeCSS case. CSS was DVDCCA's product. But it was MPAA who actually used DMCA to sue people over CSS being broken. DVDCCA didn't have any DMCA claims against anyone, and the were only suing people over trade secrets. And yes, as weird as it sounds, if hypothetically DVDCCA were to start telling everyone how CSS (their own product) works, DVDCCA would be open to DMCA attack from MPAA. (Not that such a thing would really happen.)

Grey area?

[TamMan2000]

What would the DMCA have to say about commented code, which explains itself in plain english as well as code?

I read it...

[xaoslaad]

...and I hope they come for me. I will, as Tyler Durden put it "just let go." Beauracratic over-the-line BS. What is this, medievil London where unlawful carnal knowledge can get your head cut off? Knowing how to murder someone is not illegal, but knowing how to copy digital data is??

Re:I read it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing how to murder someone is not illegal, but knowing how to copy digital data is?

I don't think knowing how to do either is illegal. Doing either is.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:One day...

[cr@ckwhore]

One of the falsehoods taught about US Government in our own schools is that its a "democracy", when in fact, it isn't. The US Government is a "representative republic". We elect people to do our dirty work for us... there's no law that says our elected officials have to listen to us, but the pressure of re-election keeps 'em tuned in to the opinions and concerns of their constituents.

So, when the election comes around in the near future, DON'T VOTE FOR ANYBODY CURRENTLY IN THE CONGRESS!! This is how we as a people communicate our discontent with the actions of our current Congress. Honestly, if we keep voting these same losers into the congress, but dislike the laws they make, then we're weak as a people and deserve to have our freedoms impounded for being complacent. Freedom is a privelage that requires maintenance.

(First order of business, challenge the DMCA)

I downloaded EVERYTHING

[flikx]

I LIVE IN THE US: Salt Lake City, Utah. Come get me. Muwahahaha!

Re:I downloaded EVERYTHING

[Dolly_Llama]

And he's got a whole platoon of wives with AK-47s to fight the feds off! Live on Pay per View!

Re:I downloaded EVERYTHING

[Anonymous Coward]

I LIVE IN THE US: Salt Lake City, Utah

Isn't that punishment enough?

Re:This is just FUD. No, necessary evil.

[Havokmon]

There are enough problems with the DMCA that we don't need to make things up. If stories like this become commonplace, then lawmakers will soon ignore anyone who opposes the DMCA because they'll automatically assume they're acting on FUD and not the facts.

Don't you know how the U.S. legal system works? Let me explain:

If I spank my kid in public, the DA (District Attorney) will go back to my H.S. classmates and former employers and show that I generally disrespect authority, maybe was a bully, have a short temper, and that the incident was the latest in a string of inhumane behavior and child abuse that dates back at least 10 years.

My defense attorney, will argue that I was never disciplined for any such actions, never in a fight that is on record, and never visited by the local Social Worker (Except for our first child, which came before we were married - and is std procedure). I currently am active in my childrens lives, have defied 'conventional wisdom' by marrying my 'HS swetheart', having a kid before we were married, and staying married 8 years and having 2 more kids. S/He would also pull in a shrink to counter any past 'anger' issues due to the fact that my mom wasn't "all there".

All for what really was a spanking. (No, this didn't happen to me, but WI has tried to jail teen fathers - who try to do the right thing and be a father - for rape. So it's not impossible.)

The DMCA exists because lawmakers were convinced that the economy was going to fall because of piracy and free-flowing information. The only way to combat this in the U.S. is NOT by being rational - it's by meeting and exceeding the original irrational ideas, in an opposite way, that brought this beast into existance in the first place.

No can do

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

"Discussing this document with a US citizen
may be an offence."

I'd would've liked to post a comment here, but I would like to keep the option open of coming to the US somewhere in the future, so ...

__CENSORED__

Re:One day...

[liposuction]

It's not a democracy dipshit. Stop trying to make it one. It's a representative republic. Mob rule sucks ASS.

I hope this country never becomes a democracy. Too many asshats that don't know jack squat.

DMCA? The begining of the end...

[paja]

I think DMCA is good example of how U. S. will loose its domination.

By restricting anything which may compromise poorly designed products U. S. will slightly stop any significant research and development, so as americans have to buy Japan electronics, they will have to buy encryption technology from Europe, communications equipment from Israel and software from Eastern Europe and Russia.

More laws will emerge to prevent techology companies moving out, restricting U. S. citizens to work abroad. Canada will have to require visas from americans, because they will seek asylum in there. British and Canadian controls will be set on american international airports to prevent asylum seekers to enter both countries. Amnesty International will be terminated and reopened in Paris.

Military power will be supplied by foreign components and foes will know their weaknesses better than U. S. The more 9/11 will arrive and U. S. will try to respond with military actions. U. N. will become angry about it.

Americans will still fly to space, but only to repair ISS or put in new communication equipment for Japan/Europe corporations. I am really looking forward to Intel HQ and R&D in Europe or Canada, while moving production plants to U. S., rather than Mexico, because of workforce price.

Japan will legally buy Hawaii. Russia with Japan will be complaining about american fishermen overcoming legally agreed quotas on fish in northern Pacific.

Networks of other countries will have the similar border with U. S. like China has with whole world - just because no one using any data tramsmission could not be sure if it will not be attacked by legal (in U. S.) attack at the network.

Why? Because few people wanted to keep high margins on movies...

--
paja

uh, GPL?

[mikeee]

Err, I don't think you can release a patch for GPL software (ie, Linux) under a non-GPL license.

You might include a disclaimer that the patch may be illegal in your nation, but I don't think the license itself can actually prohibit distribution to particular persons.

Re:uh, GPL?

[kfg]

You are incorrect. A *patch* for GPLed software may be released under any license the author desires. This is what allows propriatary binary only hardware support, as well as providing functionality for such software as might otherwise violate the DMCA, such as DVD players.

The *patch* is the work of the author and has nothing to do with the code otherwise under the GPL. You're thinking along the MS lines that the GPL is somehow a "virus" that infects your propriatary code. Stop it.

You also seem to be laboring under some sort of misconception that the GPL somehow can confer legality/illegality. It's perfectly possible to write GPLed code under one jurisdiction that may be illegal under another and thus may be freely distributable in, say, the US, but not in, say, China. Or in this case China, but not the US.

The licese has been posted here on /.

Read it and think about it.

KFG

Re:uh, GPL?

[mwa]

As far as I can tell, the license to the code is GPL. (The patch does not "explain" how to circumvent anything, it "explains" how to prevent the circumvention.) The description is licensed under the freeworld license because it explains the vulnerabilities.

Or so I guess, since I can't read it.

Re:uh, GPL?

[Scarblac]

Err, I don't think you can release a patch for GPL software (ie, Linux) under a non-GPL license.

The patch itself is perfectly legal, and GPL licensed, and downloadable by anyone, etc.

The documentation accompanying the patch, that explains what security holes were closed, is licensed so as to be undistributable to people in the US jurisdiction. This is because the act of distributing this info is illegal under the DCMA.

Re:uh, GPL?

[mikeee]

Incorrect.

A patch (likely) still qualifies as a derivative work, even if none of the original source is included, and thus could only be distributed under the GPL.

Binary device drivers are a special case; these are arguably GPL violations, but LT has stated they're ok as long as they only use 'public' interfaces. Lots of discussion about this on LKML if you're interested.

Re:One day...

[liposuction]

Right. What you said.

=)

Re:One day...

[frunch]

Just becaues you don't vote doesn't mean you can't complain

Voting IS complaining... only it's a USEFUL form of complaining that elected representatives listen to. If you don't like someone, vote against them. THAT should be how you complain. If you don't vote, you're allowed to complain, sure (free speech and all). But you can't expect your complaints to do any good.

Any individual's vote makes no difference

Gore would disagree with you.

Re:One day...

[AKnightCowboy]

In a democracy, you are responsible for the actions of those you elect.

No, in a democracy you are responsible for the laws you vote for. In a democratic republic (like the United States of America) your representatives are responsible for their votes and you have to live with them and hope they match your ideology. I've never seen a candidate get 100% of the population voting for them unless they have no opponent so don't blame "All American Citizens" for the actions of the representatives of the majority... in the case of the DMCA, that would be former President Bill Clinton and the democrats and moderate republicans who voted for him.

Re:One day...

[uncoveror]

We didn't vote for Bush the first time. He siezed power in a coup. Read more.

HERE IT IS!!!! enjoy :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Security Holes Fixed In Linux 2.4.19

None of the holes documented here are remote. All these problems were
uncovered by auditing and there are no current exploits available. In
the interest of openness and ensuring people are aware of the security
fixes they are documented.

- If the Stradis driver is loaded (hardware must be present) a
maths overflow allowed the user to scribble into kernel memory

- It was possible to feed the SE401 USB hardware driver signed
values and fool kernel checks. This requires the hardware is
present

- The usbvideo driver could be fooled due to a maths overflow corner
case. This requires drivers to be present

- The /proc/slabinfo file could exceed a buffer size and cause
corruption of the kernel. This is really beyond user control but
if it occurs then the user can trigger the corruption

- By setting the TF flag a carefully constructed binary could hang
the kernel dead

- By misusing the rlimit resource limits it was possible to avoid
acct data being written on your process exit

- The joystick driver had erroneous copies in obscure ioctl cases
that could be used to patch the kernel as any user. Hardware
must be present and the module loaded for this vulnerability
to occur

- Multiple errors in the vm86 handling allowed users to force an
"Oops" from the kernel and in some cases to corrupt kernel data.
An additional small fix is needed for 2.4.19 but not 2.4.19-ac
(see bottom)

- The rt_cache_proc file could be tricked into returning chunks of
kernel data.

- On a system with over 1Gb of RAM the loop driver could in some
cases fail and expose kernel data. This is not under user control.
On 2.4.19 the loop driver works fine with large memory systems.

- Multiple /proc files could be persuaded to dump kernel data
due to a sanity checking bug in the proc file handlers

- The XMM SSE registers were not always cleared for new processes
and could expose data from a different task. While it was not
possible to modify another tasks registers there is a small risk
because some cryptographic systems have XMM acceleration functions

We also fixed problems that required privileges to exploit. These affected
the IBM S/390 dasd driver, Openprom on Sparc systems, the Intermezzo file
system, the ewrk3 network driver, module loading, the microcode driver and
vm86. We document these in the interest of completeness.

Finally on a -ac based tree with PnPBIOS enabled a problem existed in some
quite common BIOS implementations that causes a crash when certain 32bit
BIOS calls are made. This allowed users to crash some systems by reading
files in /proc. These files are now root private. The base tree is not
affected as it lacks PnPBIOS support

Credits

The authors would like to thank Silvio Cesare, Stas Sergeev, Andi Kleen,
Alan Cox, Solar Designer, and many others for their work on making 2.4.19 a
more secure kernel.

-- Additional Required Patch --

diff -u --new-file --recursive --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude linux.20pre1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c linux.20pre1-ac1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
--- linux.20pre1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 2002-08-06 15:40:50.000000000 +0100
+++ linux.20pre1-ac1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 2002-08-06 15:42:19.000000000 +0100
@@ -305,8 +319,13 @@
static void inline do_trap(int trapnr, int signr, char *str, int vm86,
struct pt_regs * regs, long error_code, siginfo_t *info)
{
- if (vm86 && regs->eflags & VM_MASK)
- goto vm86_trap;
+ if (regs->eflags & VM_MASK) {
+ if (vm86)
+ goto vm86_trap;
+ else
+ goto trap_signal;
+ }
+
if (!(regs->xcs & 3))
goto kernel_trap;

@@ -514,10 +533,15 @@
{
unsigned int condition;
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+ unsigned long eip = regs->eip;
siginfo_t info;

__asm__ __volatile__("movl %%db6,%0" : "=r" (condition));

+ /* If the user set TF, it's simplest to clear it right away. */
+ if ((eip >=PAGE_OFFSET) && (regs->eflags & TF_MASK))
+ goto clear_TF;
+
/* Mask out spurious debug traps due to lazy DR7 setting */
if (condition & (DR_TRAP0|DR_TRAP1|DR_TRAP2|DR_TRAP3)) {
if (!tsk->thread.debugreg[7])

I Will Not Apply A Patch I Do Not Understand

[ausoleil]

One of the prime rules of administering a system is to never destabilize it. I have great respect for Red Hat, and use their systems every day, but whatever this patch does, I will not apply it until I understand what effect it is going to have on my systems.

I suppose I could (and really SHOULD) look at the source and figure it out from there, but given the fact that time is a scarce resource, it will be lower on my priority list than the other problems that are more readily apparent to me.

That means that the DMCA is actually contributing to the destabilization of the systems I am responsible for. Makes me wonder just who is being protected here in the land of "free speech" and home of the brave.

Re:I Will Not Apply A Patch I Do Not Understand

[thasmudyan]

I suppose I could (and really SHOULD) look at the source and figure it out from there

Alright, I am obviously no lawyer BUT if information that has to be censored to comply with the DMCA is contained in source code (as probably always is) does that not also imply it's illegal to give the source to US citizens / illegal for citizens to access the source?

If my assumption is correct that would mean effectively outlawing open source in the United States in the long run. Can someone enlighten me about this?

Re:I Will Not Apply A Patch I Do Not Understand

[ryanwright]

That means that the DMCA is actually contributing to the destabilization of the systems I am responsible for.

No, posting on /. is contributing to the destabilization of the systems you are responsible for. It's funny that you "don't have the time" to fix the system, but you DO have time to post here. ;)

Re:I Will Not Apply A Patch I Do Not Understand

[ausoleil]

We all have to test internet connectivity Ryan.

Apparently both of ours works! ;)

The USA is a REPUBLIC not a Democracy

[cnelzie]

We do value the ideas of Democracy, but we are a Republic. A Republic is just a little bit different then a Democracy. For instance, we do vote for the men and women that represent us in our nation's capital.

However, the laws that they create do not necesarily represent the views of their constituents. If that was the case, then every American Citizen would have the right to vote on the creation of laws such as the DMCA.

Our Republic is a popularity contest regarding who ends up in office. This popularity contest is run in front of a back-drop of "parties" which are supposed to represent the basic views of the person running for that office.

In the Republic of the United States, true Democracy only exists in the local arena (School Millage Hikes/Cuts, local ordinances and such) and sometimes shows its face in state elections when public acts are put up for citizen review.

If we lived in a true Democracy, I personally believe that the citizenry would have destroyed the Constitution many years ago by creating laws that limit the freedoms and liberties that our Republic currently partially protects. The trouble is that our representatives have forgotten that and so have the citizens that voted them in. If they were to remember what our form of government really is and change some of their ways, we can once again move forward with our great experiment.

Re:The USA is a REPUBLIC not a Democracy

[drxenos]

This stupid issue comes up every time there is a story like this, with some moron saying, "We are not a Democrary, we are a Republic." Go back to school. We are neither; we are what is called a Representative Democrary.

Re:Quit your fearmongering

[ocelotbob]

You're being silly here. None of this is going to happen, because other countries are considering, or have already enacted, laws just as bad, if not worse than, the DMCA. Check out the information on the EU directive known as the European Union Copyright Directive, or the Digital Agenda Act, which is Australia's answer to the DMCA. The DMCA is on shaky constitutional grounds in the US, is the act your country going to pass be?

Re:Egads

[Anonymous Coward]

i just posted the relevant file from thefreeworld site. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=42463&cid= 4461419. use it wisely.

what, it doesn't?

[Ender Ryan]

So your telling me that chmod -r My_Copyrighted_Work.mpeg won't make my file unreadable by other users on a system?

Uh oh, I better switch to windows then!

Of course the kernel implements copy protection, but it's a general purpose protection, not specific to copyright, but CAN be used to protect a copyrighted work just the same.

By the letter of the law, this changelog IS illegal.

So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not USian...so:

Security Holes Fixed In Linux 2.4.19

None of the holes documented here are remote. All these problems were
uncovered by auditing and there are no current exploits available. In
the interest of openness and ensuring people are aware of the security
fixes they are documented.

- If the Stradis driver is loaded (hardware must be present) a
maths overflow allowed the user to scribble into kernel memory

- It was possible to feed the SE401 USB hardware driver signed
values and fool kernel checks. This requires the hardware is
present

- The usbvideo driver could be fooled due to a maths overflow corner
case. This requires drivers to be present

- The /proc/slabinfo file could exceed a buffer size and cause
corruption of the kernel. This is really beyond user control but
if it occurs then the user can trigger the corruption

- By setting the TF flag a carefully constructed binary could hang
the kernel dead

- By misusing the rlimit resource limits it was possible to avoid
acct data being written on your process exit

- The joystick driver had erroneous copies in obscure ioctl cases
that could be used to patch the kernel as any user. Hardware
must be present and the module loaded for this vulnerability
to occur

- Multiple errors in the vm86 handling allowed users to force an
"Oops" from the kernel and in some cases to corrupt kernel data.
An additional small fix is needed for 2.4.19 but not 2.4.19-ac
(see bottom)

- The rt_cache_proc file could be tricked into returning chunks of
kernel data.

- On a system with over 1Gb of RAM the loop driver could in some
cases fail and expose kernel data. This is not under user control.
On 2.4.19 the loop driver works fine with large memory systems.

- Multiple /proc files could be persuaded to dump kernel data
due to a sanity checking bug in the proc file handlers

- The XMM SSE registers were not always cleared for new processes
and could expose data from a different task. While it was not
possible to modify another tasks registers there is a small risk
because some cryptographic systems have XMM acceleration functions

We also fixed problems that required privileges to exploit. These affected
the IBM S/390 dasd driver, Openprom on Sparc systems, the Intermezzo file
system, the ewrk3 network driver, module loading, the microcode driver and
vm86. We document these in the interest of completeness.

Finally on a -ac based tree with PnPBIOS enabled a problem existed in some
quite common BIOS implementations that causes a crash when certain 32bit
BIOS calls are made. This allowed users to crash some systems by reading
files in /proc. These files are now root private. The base tree is not
affected as it lacks PnPBIOS support

Credits

The authors would like to thank Silvio Cesare, Stas Sergeev, Andi Kleen,
Alan Cox, Solar Designer, and many others for their work on making 2.4.19 a
more secure kernel.

Re:So What?

[Cid Highwind]

Great, now could someone please explain what part of that could be constured as a circumvention device? Even Hillary Rosen couldn't find a DMCA violation in this!

Hello, Toronto! (nt)

[Chris Pimlott]

Hello, Toronto! (nt)

What to do now!

[DSL-Admin]

It appears that our lovely country has turned into the same type of Government that we originally tried to escape from. John Hancock, George Washington, and others of their day would be ashamed of how anal retentive and hypocritical this so called (free) country has become. He are now put in jail and persecuted for having free will and an individual mind...... Time for a REVOLUTION!!!!

Re:What to do now!

[Anonymous Coward]

If the government of the US continues to make criminals out of its' citizens, then just wait until its' citizens have to fight back...by becoming terrorists!

Re:What to do now!

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's time to get up off your sorry ass and vote. If you don't like the way things are going, get involved. The system can be changed with the mechanisms available to us, but not until enough people decide they want to change it.

Re:What to do now!

[DSL-Admin]

That seems a little bit insulting considering the fact that you don't know me, and don't know if I vote or not. I didn't realize that you are omnipotent, and furthermore; I do get involved with a lot things, acutally. Why is it that people like you have to always go running your mouth and assume that those of us who don't like the current govt don't vote? Hmm, I pity your ignorance, maybe one day you will have less of it and become wise to the world around you.

Re:What to do now!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I get for dashing off a quick response. "Your" was meant in a more generic sense, not specifically you.

As for the rest of your question, I assumed you don't vote because you took the usual /. paranoid approach to any argument by decrying the state of the nation and suggesting that everyone revolt, move to another country, or anything but use the system to try to change the system. Is it really any surprise that I responded in such a way? It is certainly a much bigger leap to go from your original statement to "DSL-Admin is a conscientious voter who always gets involved."

Re:What to do now!

[DSL-Admin]

I wouldn't tell someone to move out of the country with out provocation. I know where you are coming from though, I have been told to "move out of the country" because of something I replied to, and I take it as an insult because I was born and raised here. If had moved here, I could understand, but this is my home, and I hate to see what's becoming of it. For the record, I accept your statment about the "quick response" and I retract my statement of pity for ignorance..... hatchet buried!

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. Just keep repeating a lie long enough, and people will believe it.

Every recount in Florida resulted in more votes for Bush than Gore. Every recount.

Re:Use the source?

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

I mean, can't you just read the source of the patch

I had this thought after the first time, and am seriously thinking that this thoug of mine may not be such a joke or bad idea after all:

One word: SELAND!

Move the master kernel repository over there. It may not account for everyone's DL's, but at least the master tree will always exist in an untained form.

This is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an avid user and supporter of OpenBSD. Theo makes it plainly clear that OpenBSD users will never be kept in the dark. Because OpenBSD is based in Canada and the Web site is being hosted there, Theo is beholden to the DMCA. It's a joy to be able to get information on something that I use... and useful information at that.
I agree with a poster earlier in this thread who stated that he will not install a patch that he does not understand. I completely agree. Linux us Microsoft and to keep the user base in the dark as to exploits is maddening. The entire concept of open source has been skewed by Alan Cox not releasing this information on the exploit. So now we have a classic case of security through obscurity. Only the maintainers now have the right to see the exploit. Sure, I could take a look at the source code of the patch and determine what is happening underneath, but I shouldn't have to do this.

the best part is

[Ender Ryan]

The best part about this "stunt" is that it is entirely correct. Sure, the U.S. government wouldn't prosecute someone for these changelogs, but they COULD, and that is the key to why the DMCA is such a bad law.

Drunk??

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you are intoxicated while you read it. Pehaps you're intoxicated and a room full of beautiful women are inticing you to read it... something like that happened to Clinton...er...wait...uh

Re:One day...

[nmg]

It's not just liberals that want that out.

Ok All americans that saw this are under arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

All Americans that saw the post That reproduce the article are under arrest. send your emails to yourrights@dmca.bet.you.why

Our own retarded laws

[SoSueMe]

We may soon get our own set of retarded laws, if we don't watch out.
In the recent "Speach from the Throne", the Governor General stated "...the government will adapt its intellectual property framework to enable Canada to be a world leader on emerging issues such as new life forms."

Then there was the bit about "The government will revise Canadian copyright rules to ensure that Canada has a progressive regime that supports increased investment in knowledge and cultural works."

This has me a little wary and I will be keeping an eye open for the changes.

You can read the above here.

Re:Pure FUD

[dbateman]

I think you need to read the article in the Register. It states that RedHat were forced to take this measure due to the license that was placed on the patch, and then implied that it was Alan Cox who did this.

So if it is contrived, it was Alan Cox who did it, not RedHat. And it might also be argued that under the DMCA that pointing under flaws in other peoples software is illegal. Thus as Alan Cox isn't the owner of Linux, even though he is a major contributor, it is easy to argue that his license was a necessary restriction to prevent legal action under the DMCA

So you shouldn't see this as FUD, but rather the response of one developer to the perceived threat of legal action

D.

what about security companies?

[zozzi]

So does this mean that if a white hat security company finds a bug in Windows it cannot report it to MS but can only supply binary patches?

Does this mean MS will supply SP4 without saying what it contains within?

I think my tagline sums up pretty much what DMCA et al are saying

Re:One day...

[cliveholloway]

In a democracy, you are responsible for the actions of those you elect.

True. But you're misinformed. The US is not a democracy. The two puppet system in place at the moment is hardly democractic.

cLive ;-)

Don't blame me - I vote Green

how can a changelog be a circumvention device?

[Billly Gates]

Under the dmca only circumvention devices are outlawed. Since Linux is not a "copyright protection device or aka drm", its therefor not covered by the dmca.

Also I do not think published papers are circumvention devices like adobe and the mpaa claim. A paper is not a physical device so security research can legally continue. I believe the lawyers at Hollywood are just shouting boo at security researchers.

Last but not least who is going to file charges agaisn't redhat? Linus??

Its perfectly legal to talk about flaws in a product. What is not legal is to create circumvention devices or programs to take advantage of drm security holes for a limited set of copy protection products.

Redhat is going to lose respect in the business community if they start getting all paranoid by this.

Re:how can a changelog be a circumvention device?

[debest]

You'll note that RedHat still provided an easy (although essentially labelled "Use at your own risk") link to the changelog. In other words, they encourage you to break their strict interpretation of the law in order to get your work done.

They are simply trying to make a point: that the DMCA is stupid, and you have to do stupid things to be in compliance with it. By the way, the application of the DMCA in this scenario is not that the changelog is a circumvention device to the Linux kernel. The issue is that Linux can be(and I imagine is) used effectively *AS* a copy protection product, and the information in the changelog could be interpreted as a way of circumventing the protections.

And as far as Red Hat losing respect in the business community: I doubt it. Any business which is enlightened enough to adopt free software at all will already understand the nuances of copyright issues (they will have had to have investigated the GPL and BSD licences), and will not be scared away by this.

Re:how can a changelog be a circumvention device?

[Sloppy]

Since Linux is not a "copyright protection device or aka drm", its therefor not covered by the dmca.

It is, if you use it to store your copyrighted works.

Re:how can a changelog be a circumvention device?

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of b.s. in this thread has reached a new high, even for Slashdot.

The law cares about INTENT, for heavens sake. What is the difference between murder and an accidental shooting? Nothing but intent. It doesn't matter that both consist of 1 person shooting another, and the second person dies. They are treated very differently.

I am amazed by how many amazingly ignorant people think the judicial systme is some kind of ultra-robotic mechanism that treats the wording of every law in an extermely literal fashion. Maybe that's a tendency among the math and computer-science oriented people on this site, but in the real world common sense actaully prevails.

Nothing about this patch, or describing this patch, has anything to do with an INTENT to criminally copy protected works. Saying it does is like saying a stabbing victim can sue the manufacturer of the steak knife he was stabbed with. The company making the knife was not INTENDING to manufacture a murder weapon.

Can the DMCA be used against me if I point out that plugging in your PC can eventually lead to the copying of protected material?

Get a clue, you morons.

Re:how can a changelog be a circumvention device?

[alizard]

The only respect I see anyone losing over your assertion about Red Hat is whatever respect anyone has for your knowledge about computer security and Federal law.

They, Alan Cox, et.al. are right. You are wrong. Suck it up and deal.

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

He still lost the popular vote by almost a half million votes. Almost a half million.

Alan Cox works for red-hat.

[leuk_he]

Alan Cox works for red-hat.

In Massachusetss the new law is null and void. So.

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

Massachusetts rejected this crap. So, maybe all of us should follow suit. Redhat should ignore it, or
use a Massachusetts based location ot get it out.

Not only very little debate...

[Smallest]

...it was actually written by lawyers for the the media industry, not by congressmen. it is a clear example of a bill bought and paid for by special interests.

Digital Copyright

-c

Re:One day...

[arkane1234]

So, when the election comes around in the near future, DON'T VOTE FOR ANYBODY CURRENTLY IN THE CONGRESS!!

The last I checked, America didn't vote in congressional members, the president elected them.
Much like how Ashcroft recieved his position.

I've got it!

[c.derby]

Distribute all discussions of DMCA violations as heavily commented "source code"

There...

It doesn't even have to compile. Or maybe it COULD compile and it would be like an easter egg. Sort of like the treat in the box of Cracker Jacks.

"Wow, this is really great information. Now I wonder what it code does?"

Re:I've got it!

[arkane1234]

With todays DMCA, cracking a Cracker Jacks coder/decoder ring without the ring would be against the law. Anything that we can do as a "loophole" (as the Brady's like to put it in alot of cases where your rights are still left) should be jumped on.

Re:I've got it!

[Ian Wolf]

Oh Shit! Does this mean those "Break the Code" puzzles in the newspaper are going to land me in jail?

Re:I've got it!

[Verteiron]

Only if the newspaper decides to press charges; they have more money than you (probably) so you will (probably) lose.

who cares if they ever see another Hollywood movie

[Anonymous Coward]

All of you 'sky is falling, sky is falling DMCA opponents ought to change your track. Anything that is copy protected with the DMCA stuff is corporate culture crap that you ought to be glad that eventually you won't be able to read or hear or see without paying for it.

It is going to be main-stream money-monger brainwash crap that you'll be better off not seeing anyway. . .

Let them protect their works with their schemes of cupidity. And let us make our own media.

I don't care if there is a day when I can no longer see what Hollywood makes, and what comes out of madison ave.

Once they realize that we WON"T watch their crap they will once again put it into a format that we can view for free. After all, most corporate media is one long commercial anyway.

So, look at it as freedom from their brainwashing and mind control techneques.

Oh, but maybe you like those explicitily cooriographed pictures of bullets going through a skull.

Once we can't view the Hollywood crap, then we are on our way to freeing our minds from their envy and money mongering culture.

And we don't have to do anything.

Imagine, no more commercials, not needing to worry about the kids watching shows which pervert their minds.

AWESOME.

So stop trying to hack the crap that these Ahole make and start making your own media.

It is HP's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason this happened is because HP threatened Snosoft over a bugtraq post. The only logical basis for HP's threat was Alan Cox's theory that linux permissions are an access control device and revealing security holes would circumvent that access control device. Had HP not threatened Snosoft with the DMCA, this patch likely would not have been censored. However, the HP threat proved Alan Cox's fears about publishing information on security holes correct.

That's not the problem....

[3seas]

Ultimately the problem is in the industry not making a clear identification of different product lines. Do so intentionally is an act of consumer fraud and last I understood, such things are supposed to be illegal.... Like Antitrust..

The correct divide between product lines is constrained products on one side and open products on the other. There are different product lines.

To promote otherwise is not only consumer fraud but also anti-trust as it wrongfully attempts to suppress competition and consumer choice.

That's the way it really is. Know it and become informants to the public.

I have no problems in deciding to buy or not buy constrained products and I have no problem with not being able to use those constrained product on an open product line. I'd perhaps even be willing to pay a little more if I felt I needed to use some constrained product on on an open product.

But the problem here is the clear intent to blur and blunder that choice, by the industries, politicians and other involved in teh intent to force me to products against my choice.

Even now I have found since october 9th that I personally cannot access slashdot from my Amiga system without going thru an anonymizer. I resent the hell outof that as it forces me to use a fucking god damn product of a legally found guilty of breaking federal anti-trust law company called Microsoft.

And this is what I am paying taxes for?

There is this document called the "Declaration of Independance" that more people really should read at this this time of government abuses. Seriously!!! Do a google search and read it!

maybe you can complain, but...

[i8a4re]

...Just becaues you don't vote doesn't mean you can't complain Not voting is just like the people at work who bitch about everything that is wrong but don't do anything to help fix the problem. If you are at a party and cake is being handed out, and I ask you if you want white or chocolate icing. You just sit there and don't answer me, so I give you white icing. Now you decide that you really wanted chocolate. You have the right to free speach and I can't stop you from complaining about it, but don't think for one second that I or anyone else that knows you didn't make a choice is going to listen or care about your complaint.

If you don't vote then bitch about the elected officials, then I guess you just like hearing yourself talk because your arguements, no matter how valid, carry no weight because you were not responsible enough to voice your opinion.

No offense to you personally, but there are far too many people out there that think their vote is so insignificant that they don't bother to vote. I used to work for an election office (in Florida too), and on a GOOD election, we would get 30% voter turn out. That is pathetic. Everyone reading this far, please take the 15 minutes on election day and go vote.

Re:maybe you can complain, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were ever to refuse giving me chocolate cake, I would snap your backbone and break up the fucking party. I'm so fat when I vote I pass out.

you didn't even RTFA

[Ender Ryan]

You didn't even RTFA, so WTF should anyone listen to you?

The problem isn't with the patch, it's with the Changelog, and RedHat didn't really have anything to do with it.

Re:you didn't even RTFA

[Reality Master 101]

The problem isn't with the patch, it's with the Changelog, and RedHat didn't really have anything to do with it.

Red Hat should stand up for intelligence and rewrite the changelog in their own words if they have to. Just because Alan Cox is an idiot about everything except programming doesn't mean that Red Hat and everyone else should roll over. I don't particularly like the DMCA, and would like to see it overturned. But idiocy like this DAMAGES THE CAUSE.

I think everyone should publish the changelog and give a big F-you to Cox' stupidity.

Don't you get it?

[Marc2k]

2) they have no rights under our system as they are housed on forgin soil and have never toutched our shores...there is a few court rulings on that one

Without getting further into an offtopic war, I'll say this: That is why the US government is taking them to Cuba, so they don't have rights according to American laws. That was the ENTIRE point of the comment about taking them to Cuba. Somehow that one got by you.

Why dont we educate our govt leaders?

[PyrotekNX]

The only way to get these rediculous laws from being passed is to educate the people voting on the matter. Let's face it, these people were elected on the basis of their person to person skills. It's not often that you see a computer engineer or any type of professional run for congress or president. Some of these people elected are so old that they barely know how to turn a computer on; how would they have any idea about the dangerous and wrong laws they passing. Private organizations come in and present all these sugarcoated ideas in to people that clearly don't get it. They (RIAA, WIPO, MPAA, BSA, etc.) come in, take people out to an expensive meal, and sweettalk them into submission. If that fails then some may resort to 'gifts' to their party for key votes. I guess our government is up for sale to the highest bidder.

Re:Why dont we educate our govt leaders?

[Cid Highwind]

Unfortunately, the "leaders" *do* get it.
Pro-DMCA -> big corps with lots of money
Anti-DMCA -> scruffy hacker-types with no money
Gee, I wonder who's going to win over more legislators?

Very clever...

[M.C. Hampster]

Hmm, a story about security holes in Linux, but no actual comments about security holes in Linux.

Brilliant way to distract from the issue.

Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

This effectively gives US soldiers carte blanche to rape, pillage and burn in a manner that would make the atrocities in the Balkans seems like a Sunday School picnic with no chance of war crimes charges ever being laid. They may get some kind of court martial or charges laid in the US court or they may not. There would be no recourse for an aggrieved party in the Internation Courts.

Self contradicting while using wholly inaccurate assertions is bad form.

Hey chief, I'm not saying it's true or not, but I didn't see any proof on your part either besides violent arm-flapping. Also, there's no contradiction there, he's saying that the US may court martial, but if they were bound by International Courts, they'd be court martialed (at the US' discretion), and then tried by an International Court for war crimes. Please, don't try to be witty or sarcastic, you just can't hack it.

Re:Use the source?

[Scarblac]

If that's the case, then it would be legal to distribute the DeCSS code as long as you don't tell anyone what it does.

No, since DeCSS is a circumvention device (another part of the DMCA).

Re:Use the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

The plural of User is Users.

Re:One day...

[joesao]

Your elected representatives will pay attention to you, the American voters, only for the next 3 weeks or so. Mobilize if you can; otherwise suffer 2 more years of the same but please don't complain!.

Well, I'll complain anyway. The biggest problem is that 99% of the population doesn't know and doesn't understand DRM issues. That includes the politicians who passed this ludicrous law by unanimous vote.

In a nascent digital/Internet industry, doubtless some laws will be passed whose effects will only later be fully understood. Right now, even the tech elite doesn't fully understand the complete ramifications of the DMCA, much less the masses! What we have to do is spread the knowledge, educate the voters and the politicians so that laws like these aren't passed in the future.

Re:One day...

[cscx]

This is very bad moderation. He is correct.

Re:One day...

[arkane1234]

The last couple of times I've tried complaining about anything to my elected representative, they sent me letters back saying that was not something they were currently involved in.

Like I keep a roster of what they are currently involved in! I do, however, know what current events are hot in Washington. If they aren't involved in those, then there's a problem. That means that /I/ am not represented.

This sounds like a job for:

[Bobzibub]

http://cryptome.org/
: )

Interesting...

[91degrees]

That's an angle I hadn't thought about.

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong you are! The president gets to select judges, and cabinet members, but House reps and senators are elected by the people and/or large corporations.

HTH. HAND.

couldn't we...

[Niles_Stonne]

Couldn't we just take a look at the differences in the source and figure out what was changed?

Oh, wait, Reverse Engineering is violating the DMCA too...

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um.

Third World is an option

[notfancy]

let's base debian in antarctica...

The third world is a good option. Cheap wages, highly educated middle-upper classes, good connections to the I'net. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, India, Uruguay are obvious (and alphabetically sorted!) candidates for hosting OS endeavors.

Imagine what a little donation can do in these countries!

Full disclosure: I'm Argentine.

Re:Third World is an option

[Winterblink]

The third world is a good option. Cheap wages, highly educated middle-upper classes, good connections to the I'net. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, India, Uruguay are obvious (and alphabetically sorted!) candidates for hosting OS endeavors.

Yes, but the third world is in no way connected to the lovable mascot of Linux -- the noble penguin. Antarctica is the most logical place for a Linux company. :)

Re:Third World is an option

[sbeitzel]

Wait a minute. I thought there were penguins on the Falkland Islands -- a mere hop from Argentina. And aren't there penguins in the southern bits of Chile?

Re:Third World is an option

[notfancy]

Wait a minute. I thought there were penguins on the Falkland Islands -- a mere hop from Argentina. And aren't there penguins in the southern bits of Chile?

Don't quote me on this, but I think there are penguin colonies as north as Bahia Blanca in the Buenos Aires province (the major indentation in the Atlantic coast of South America). There are colonies in the Valdez peninsula (the silly thingamajig further south, where all the whales and stuff are).

I don't really know about Chile, 'cos I think the prevailing bird in the Southern Pacific coast is the cormorant.

Argentina is a natural place for proper, ecologically sound care and feeding of Linux.

Re:One day...

[cr@ckwhore]

You are what is wrong with America!

obligitory karma whoring

[dextr0us]

Begin obligitory karma whoring. that is the website for the people who vote on what bills, and this is specifically for the DMCA

Re:obligitory karma whoring

[Anonymous Coward]

Congradulations, we just slashdoted the GPO.

Re:obligitory karma whoring

[MARG]

More help, please.
I don't find any list of people by following
your link.

We already are!

[lorcha]

We already are on Double Secret Probation! Have been since 26-OCT-2001. Argh.

Then almost all security notices violate the DMCA

[Get Behind the Mule]

The issues discussed in the patch notice are pretty mundane, and it took me quite some time to figure out what the hell the problem with the DMCA might be. I'm still not sure.

The reasoning, apparently, is that by documenting the security weaknesses that were fixed, they reveal ways to hack unpatched versions of the kernel. And that would be circumvention, and hence violations of the DMCA. All of the holes were found in code audits, and there are no known exploits, so this announcement documents these problems for the first time. (Maybe it's less of an issue if you announce fixes to holes that someone else already found.)

But if that is really taken as a violation of the DMCA, then almost all public notices of security issues may be illegal, even if the author did not write an exploit, and indeed even if no exploit is known to exist. The entire CERT site is at risk. Bruce Schneier may be one of the rampant criminals on Earth.

I dunno, it certainly would be crazy if the DMCA really has that implication, but are Cox and Co. certain that the law really means that? I'll bet there is no case law suggesting such a thing -- and after all, it's the courts' interpretations that really matter in the end. Has any legal scholar ever suggested that the DMCA can be interpreted this way?

I certainly don't like the DMCA, and I think it's unconstitutional (First Amendment, you know), but I wonder if this stunt will backfire. If it turns out that they're making a big deal out of something that the DMCA doesn't actually forbid, then opponents of the law will end up looking a bit hysterical.

Re:It happened with full support of the REPUBLICAN

[arkane1234]

Wow.. the librarians are getting into politics?
Now /they/ would have some really great record-keeping strategies! I bet you'd never heard them say, "I don't recall". More like, "I don't remember, but give me 2-3 seconds and I'll pull that information up."

Re:One day...

[boy_afraid]

So let me get this straight. We are fscked if we vote Democratic because of the entertainment business lobbiests, and we are fscked if we vote Republican because of their oil business lobbiests. We are getting fscked from both ends.

When are we, as a nation of the people, going to rise and take it back again. Was it Jefferson, or whomever, that said that a revolution was needed periodically to shake up the government and set it right? When is a strong third party, maybe libertarian or other, going to rise and speak for the real people and not for businesses. And NO, socialist doesn't count!

DMCA does not forbid reading/posting by definition

[papasasha]

Chapter 12, section 1201 of the DMCA. "(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products. " You can talk about it. You can read it. You can even post it. Bob & Tom can read the Redhat patch description over the radio. This looks to be in direct conflict with b1, also in section 1201: "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that - " U.S. congress is prohibited from passing the latter into law, it being in direct conflict with the first amendment. Remove the word 'technology' and it's probably okay. If 'technology' means descriptions as well as boxes with pretty lights and buttons. First amendment of the American constitution includes: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... " A Google search for "DMCA first amendment" and "bill of rights" will get you where you need to go if you think I've taken something out of context. Apologies for the length; brevity is not the soul of law. Legal experts, I'll be interested to hear why I've incorrectly interpreted this rare clear use of English in legislation.

Re:HP believes the DMCA covers security notices

[Anonymous Coward]

HP threatened Snosoft over a post to bugtraq, so apparently HP, a large company with lots of lawyers, belives the DMCA covers security notices.

Re:One day...

[Salamander]

In a democracy, you are responsible for the actions of those you elect.

Yes, but am I responsible for the actions of a president I most emphatically did not elect, whom many would say was not legitimately elected at all but sits in the Oval Office nonetheless? Am I responsible for the actions of some senator from North Carolina or Texas (I'm in Massachusetts) who is the chair of some committee that exercises extra-Constitutional power to affect what bills even get seen by the full legislature? Am I responsible for the actions of some unelected official even though their rules and regulations only have the force of law because Congress improperly abdicated their legislative authority when they created some bureau fifty years ago?

No, no, and no. I can and do vote for a mere handful of representatives, whose roles have become so diluted by the above factors that voting is purely an act of principle untinged by practical effect. To say that people in general are responsible for outcomes that people in general can affect so little is ridiculous.

Re:One day...

[rweir]

Seriously, how do people defend Bush? Clinton was a crappy president in a lot of ways (DMCA, weapons treaties, etc) and so is Bush.

You do realise that your country is holding people prisoner in Cuba in violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of Prisoners of War (and don't be nice to them!), right? And that your country has decided that doing something about the Greenhouse Effect is too expensive? Or that letting other countries try your soldiers on war crimes is too hard? And that getting rid of weapons of mass destruction is good, unless they're yours

Not that my country is innocent; Little Johnny locks up kids in the desert and uses the navy to storm refugee ships and then pays other countries to take the refugees of our hands.

From The Article

[Branc0]

Redistibuting this document in the USA may be a criminal offence under the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act with punishment including jail sentences.
Attempting to test these holes in the USA, even with the permission of the
system owner may be an offence. Discussing this document with a US citizen
may be an offence.

Ok ladies and gentleman... talking about this stuff eh? Sign your name below, you're all under arrest!

Your spelling is awful.

[Anonymous Coward]

take a class or something.

Darn Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a darn shame that I can download the files still even though my ip maps to the US. Oh well, so much for information not being free.

D.M.C.A song

[aaron_pet]

Young man, there's a need to feel down
I said, young man, throw yourself on the ground
I said, young man, 'cause your in a new town
There's a need to be unhappy

Young man, there's a place you can go
I said, young man, when you're short on your rights
You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find
Many ways to have a good time.

It's fun to stay at the J.A.I.L.
It's fun to stay 'cause the D.M.C.A.
They have everything For old men to enjoy.
They can hang out with all you boys.

It's fun to stay at the J.A.I.L.
It's fun to stay 'cause the D.M.C.A.
You can't get yourself clean
You can't have a good meal (because it likely contains DNA that created a plant that fuels you so you can talk... and say anything... and thats information that they don't want you to share)
They can do whatever they feel.

Cong' man, Are you listening to me
I said, cong' man, what do you want to be
I said, cong' man, you can make go away your rights,
all you've got to do is this one thing.

No man, does it all by himself
I said, every man, put your life on the shelf
And just break that, its the D.M.C.A.
I'm sure you can break that today

It's fun to stay at the J.A.I.L.
It's fun to stay 'cause the Y.M.C.A.
You have everything for old men to enjoy.
They can hang out with all you boys.

Cong' Man, I once filled your shoes,
I said, I'm not down with the you's
I felt, no man cared if I were alive
I felt the whole world was so jive

That's when someone came up to me
and said young man take a walk up 1600 pen 'reet
There's a thing there called the D.M.C.A.
They can start you'r ass on it's way.

D.M.C.A.
just go to the J.A.I.L.
Cong' Man, Cong' Man, I once filled your shoes,
Cong' Man, Cong' Man, Now it's out with all yous

D.M.C.A.
D.M.C.A.
D.M.C.A.
D.M.C.A.

Re:D.M.C.A song

[ccgr]

nice all it needs now is music..perhaps Weird Al can swing hat?

By that Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be illegal to supply the kernel source at all. Technically speaking.

Likewise it would probably be illegal not to patch your kernel with this patch. Since an unpatched kernel would not provide the protection a manufacturer might expect. Or something.

IANAL but I don't believe explaning how a device works was made illegal by the DMCA. Distribution of a program which exploits the patched hole would be illegal, explaining how to write one shouldn't be. The lawsuit against Felton was threatened and then quickly dropped. They knew there was now way they could possibly win. Unethical companies fraudulently abusing the legal system to silence (or attempt to silence) speech they don't like is another problem entirely.

Re:One day...

[devious]

don't complain?

in a democracy it's your right to complain!

Free Jose Padilla!

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgot about this poor bastard? Well, he is an AMERICAN CITIZEN enabled by all the rights of the CON-stitution of the Corporation of the United States of America c1871. All he did was boast about being a bad-ass in a bar. Now, he's on the brig, wasting away.

And do you think that the prisoners in Guantanamo bay are having catamaran runs? Moron!

www.whatreallyhappened.com

http://geocities.com/torturevictim/cuba.html

Remember, everyone always asks, "Duh, how did Hitler get to power..." Well, unlike Dubya he was ELECTED! STAY SHARP PEOPLE!

Re:Free Jose Padilla!

[Zordak]

Somebody modded this moron "Insightful"? Check some facts. Jose Padilla, the "poor bastard," did not just "boast about being a bad-ass in a bar." He met with Al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and organized a plan to detonate a "dirty bomb" inside of the United States. Perhaps this Anonymous Coward (if you're going to troll the government, at least log in, so we all know who the moron is) would like to be one of Mr. Padilla's targets once he is released. Mr. Padilla's treatment is neither illegal nor unprecedented.

Comparing Pres. Bush to Hitler? Not even the left wingers in congress have gone that far. At least try to make credible accusations.

Then can we submit

[tacokill]

If that is true, then can we PLEASE submit this as an actual case where the DMCA has unintended consequences? I know the copyright office will be soliticing comments in early Nov.

Re:Then can we submit

[Alsee]

If that is true, then can we PLEASE submit this as an actual case where the DMCA has unintended consequences? I know the copyright office will be soliticing comments in early Nov.

Don't waste your time. That committee works *within* the DMCA. All they can do is carve out tiny exemptions in the DMCA. They take an extremely narrow view in doing so.

I believe the only things they have done are exemptions in the case of malfunctions and for viewing the list of blocked sites for internet filtering programs.

The only reason to deal with that committee is if you agree DMCA and want to repair some insignifigant detail they overlooked when writing it.

-

Re:Use the source?

[rppp01]

One word: SELAND!

Um, you mean SEALAND, right?

The link goes to Sealandgov.org.

Just thought I'd help you out here...

This is GPL software

[Andy Dodd]

So the patch itself is illegal by their (silly) definition, because it is itself documentation of the vulnerability (and how to fix it).

And if this were properly-written GPL software, the patch would be commented... (Don't know if it is or not - It should be.)

Not really that hard, actually.

[theLOUDroom]

You're just wrong.
As long as someone somewhere could possibly decide to use Linux file permissions as a copy protection scheme, then describing any way in which these permissions could be circumvented is illegal.
This law is not limited to things that are only used as a copy protection scheme, and has already been used against programs with legitimate uses (Ex: DeCSS).
I don't think you understand just how over-reaching this law is.

Re:Not really that hard, actually.

[91degrees]

Nobody has considered using linux file permissionas as a copy protection scheme. Even if they did, the information is not primarily designed to circumvent the protection. In fact, it is designed to reinforce it.

Secondly, section 1201(j) of the act provides exceptions in the case of security information.

Re:Not really that hard, actually.

[theLOUDroom]

The primary purpose of DeCSS not as a piracy tool and it's been ruled illegal under the DMCA.
It was also possible to threaten Professor Felten with prosecution under the DMCA in spite of section 1201(j) and the threat was credible enough to prevent him from publishing his work without permission.
It apprears that there are plenty of ways to circumvent any protection of legitimate circumvention under the DMCA.

Re:Not really that hard, actually.

[91degrees]

The purpose of DeCSS was to circumvent a "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the DMCA]" It was therefore illegal under section (a)2A of DMCA. Personally, I think it should have been made legal under section 1201(f). It's curious that they didn't put up much of a fight here.

The RIAA made baseless threats. Are we to be spineless and refuse to stand up for our rights against those who made baseless threats? Felton didn't. He fought them. They backed down. The kernel maintainers aren't even waiting for a threat. They're just making a wild assumption that there will be a threat.

As for a kernel patch, and description thereof, I'd say 1201(j) covers it quite nicely.

"(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF SECURITY TESTING- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to engage in an act of security testing, if such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

`(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include--

`(A) whether the information derived from the security testing was used solely to promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system or computer network, or shared directly with the developer of such computer, computer system, or computer network; and

`(B) whether the information derived from the security testing was used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security."

Re:Not really that hard, actually.

[theLOUDroom]

As for a kernel patch, and description thereof, I'd say 1201(j) covers it quite nicely.
I'd say it doesn't.

Note section b:
(B) whether the information derived from the security testing was used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security.

Releasing the source code that fixes a vulnerability, makes it pretty obvious what the original vulnerability was. Releasing this info to the public therefore may constitute a "violation of privacy or breach of security." I read this exemption as saying: It's legal to do the research and find the security hole, but not to release it to the public as it could then be used to "facilitate infringement."

Re:Not really that hard, actually.

[91degrees]

I read it as saying that the court should consider:

Was it maintained or used in a manner in order to circumvent copy protection mechanisms? (no it wasn't. It was used or maintained in order to fix the mechanism)

Was it maintained or used in a manner to violated other laws? (no it wasn't. no other laws were breached)

Re:Not really that hard, actually.

[theLOUDroom]

Perhaps that's how you read it, but if you can agree that my interpetation is one possible interpetation, then you can probably agree that these people are being prudent about protecting themselves from the DMCA. They don't want to be dragged into a U.S. court and fight over what the DMCA means.

Re:Not really that hard, actually.

[91degrees]

Not really.

Lets see then - First of all, we'd need to find a plaintiff.

Then the prosecution would have to convince the court that the flaws detected we a copy protection scheme.

Then they would have to prove that the primary purpose of the information is to circumvent the protection scheme.

Then they would have to prove that this wasn't a legitimate act of security testing, taking both subsections A and B into account, as well as any other considerations that both sides may make.

Then they would have to show damages, which would be impossible because the defendant has fixed the problems that could be used to cause damages.

This is just a publicity stunt. If it got to court, it would be dismissed immediately.

Re:Not really that hard, actually.

[theLOUDroom]

I don't think you really grasp the scope of this law.
It's not limited to just financial damages, it provides for criminal penalties as well.

Finding a plantiff: Not hard really, I can think of at least one company with a lot of lawyers, that would have an interest in seeing Redhat go under.

Your other points are valid if someone takes your interpetation of the law, but it seems like the judge in the DeCSS case didn't, did he?

Look, the laywers at HP decided that they had legals grounds to sue for the release of information about a security flaw in their OS under DMCA. As long as that can happen the DMCA is a legitimate threat. Proving you're innocent costs money, and US law is like a no-limit poker game. If you run out of money for lawyers, it doesn't matter if your cards were better.

Re:Don't you get it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem, German, Italian and VietNamese prisoners held on US soil, in CONUS, did not get trials either.

Where are you people getting this crap that a captured combatant, regular or irregular, gets a trial at some point for the mere act of being engaged in an act of war?

Irregular combatants to not get the same "rights" as regular combatants. Try looking it up here:http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/ge neva03.htm

They DO get the same treatment and their status is pending until paneled AFTER hostilities are ended and BEFORE repatriation.

Retroactive Voting Behaviour

[oob]

This is quite normal in democracies, the electorate tends to focus (and remember, come ballot time) legislation which was harmful to them personally rather than legislation that was beneficial. The end results are that incumbent political parties (the government) tend to have an uphill battle to win support in electoral campaigns and that it is unusal for a party (or coalition of parties) to stay in office for more that two terms.

Re:Retroactive Voting Behaviour

[Blkdeath]

The end results are that incumbent political parties (the government) tend to have an uphill battle to win support in electoral campaigns and that it is unusal for a party (or coalition of parties) to stay in office for more that two terms.

In some cases though, the system works to their favour. There was a lot of uproar and scandal surrounding Jean Chretien (our Prime Minister), but he was elected with a landslide victory for his third consecutive terms (we can do that in Canada. {smile} ). From the sounds of it, though, he's stepping aside and letting someone else come to bat. The Liberal party, however, will probably paint atleast 75% of the nation red once again.

More locally here in Ontario, the memorable Mike Harris won himself a re-election, even amidst million dollar teacher-run anti-Harris ad campaigns. They tried to convince the electorate into a 'strategic voting' (or some such) which basically meant "Anybody But Harris" - which failed extremely miserably. In Durham, one of the big epicentres of the teacher strikes (elementary and secondary) the entire region was won by the Progressive Conservative (Mike's) party.

Sometimes it works for, sometimes against them.

Of course, Harris is responsible for putting a leash on the school boards (now they have to run under a budget; something that have absolutely no idea how to do ($18 million to IBM for new computers, but they have no money to buy textbooks. Strange, dat!), which is why they're so cheesed ... ), much welfare reform (he had the audacity to tell people they weren't supposed to live off of welfare indefinately. Prick!), among other things.

Re:Retroactive Voting Behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

Harris had one thing going for him -- his incredible tax cuts. Look at the tax structure in Manitoba; look at how much you'd be paying in taxes in your income bracket, and try to tell me that the extra money you get each cheque isn't almost like a personal bribe to vote for him :)

SJ Zero

Re:Retroactive Voting Behaviour

[ahodgson]

It's not that strange. Chretien hasn't actually done anything since he got into power, so there's nothing really to vote against.

Get some perspective

[tacokill]

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you actually suggesting that we (America) would go bomb someone because they had a website we don't like? Get real.

Seriously. I'm as jaded as the next guy but your prespective on this issue is warped. Regardless of how many tinfoil hats you have, we don't go bomb someone just because we "feel like it today". In 99.9% of the cases, there are tactical or strategic reasons for taking action. At the very least you have to believe that the people "in charge" think they are acting in the best interest of the country.

Re:Get some perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

At the very least you have to believe that the people "in charge" think they are acting in the best interest of the country.

I don't have to believe, anything.

Re:More correctly, a human readable explaination..

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless, of course, a judge decides that it's too "functional" in nature to be protected by the first amendment. Grr.

Re:Pure FUD

[squiggleslash]

So if it is contrived, it was Alan Cox who did it, not RedHat.

And Cox works for which major Linux-based-operating-system vendor, named after a primary-coloured piece of headwear?

Re:Pure FUD

[demon]

They're not saying the _patch_ is illegal under the DMCA, but they're saying that explaining the vulnerability that it corrects _is_, or at least potentially is. Because the information that would be contained in such a disclosure would explain how to circumvent digital (aka computer) security on unpatched RedHat systems, it could be considered a circumvention device, and therefore illegal, or quite possibly so.

Re:Don't you get it?

[the_2nd_coming]

it did not get by me, that is the whole point of me pointing it out.

Re:More correctly, a human readable explaination..

[Rader]

ah... another way for Microsoft to crush the open source movement.

STFU!

[theLOUDroom]

Don't complain my ass!
And exactly how am I going to get anything changed without complaining?
And there's a big difference between my elected representatives actually listening to me and just pretending to.
As a citizen of the US it's my constitutional right to complain. Especially given the election rigging that's been going on lately.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
It's really idiotic to think that the only time we should talk about the gripes we have with our gov't is right before election day.
They should know that we're keeping an eye on what they're doing every day.

copyright does not protect ideas.

[anwyn]

People are making a big deal about the fact that the explaination document is copyrighted. copyright does not protect ideas only the particular expression of an idea. In otherwords if someone were to release a paraphrase of the explaination document, it might violate DCMA, but it would not violate copyright.

Why would the DMCA not allow us to see this..

[Suppafly]

Read it over.. there isn't any obvious DMCA violations noted.

-- LEGALESE --

PLEASE READ FIRST.

Unfortunately the DMCA prevents this document being issued to US citizens.
This document is a copyrighted work. The authors choose to exercise their
first distribution rights to prohibit the distribution of this work in the
United States Of America, its dependancies, embassies and anywhere else
under US law.

Redistibuting this document in the USA may be a criminal offence under the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act with punishment including jail sentences.
Attempting to test these holes in the USA, even with the permission of the
system owner may be an offence. Discussing this document with a US citizen
may be an offence.

This document is made available for free without warranty or other right of
recourse implied or otherwise. No statement save one in writing by the owner
of the copyright changes this usage agreement. Any export download is at your
own risk and liability.

There is no other user agreement, should your local law make such an
agreement invalid you are prohibited from using this document, and may be
committing an offence by redistributing it.

NO WARRANTY

BECAUSE THE DOCUMENT IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE DOCUMENT, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE DOCUMENT "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE DOCUMENT IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
DOCUMENT PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE DOCUMENT AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE DOCUMENT (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE DOCUMENT TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
DOCUMENTS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

-- END LEGALESE --

Security Holes Fixed In Linux 2.4.19

None of the holes documented here are remote. All these problems were
uncovered by auditing and there are no current exploits available. In
the interest of openness and ensuring people are aware of the security
fixes they are documented.

- If the Stradis driver is loaded (hardware must be present) a
maths overflow allowed the user to scribble into kernel memory

- It was possible to feed the SE401 USB hardware driver signed
values and fool kernel checks. This requires the hardware is
present

- The usbvideo driver could be fooled due to a maths overflow corner
case. This requires drivers to be present

- The /proc/slabinfo file could exceed a buffer size and cause
corruption of the kernel. This is really beyond user control but
if it occurs then the user can trigger the corruption

- By setting the TF flag a carefully constructed binary could hang
the kernel dead

- By misusing the rlimit resource limits it was possible to avoid
acct data being written on your process exit

- The joystick driver had erroneous copies in obscure ioctl cases
that could be used to patch the kernel as any user. Hardware
must be present and the module loaded for this vulnerability
to occur

- Multiple errors in the vm86 handling allowed users to force an
"Oops" from the kernel and in some cases to corrupt kernel data.
An additional small fix is needed for 2.4.19 but not 2.4.19-ac
(see bottom)

- The rt_cache_proc file could be tricked into returning chunks of
kernel data.

- On a system with over 1Gb of RAM the loop driver could in some
cases fail and expose kernel data. This is not under user control.
On 2.4.19 the loop driver works fine with large memory systems.

- Multiple /proc files could be persuaded to dump kernel data
due to a sanity checking bug in the proc file handlers

- The XMM SSE registers were not always cleared for new processes
and could expose data from a different task. While it was not
possible to modify another tasks registers there is a small risk
because some cryptographic systems have XMM acceleration functions

We also fixed problems that required privileges to exploit. These affected
the IBM S/390 dasd driver, Openprom on Sparc systems, the Intermezzo file
system, the ewrk3 network driver, module loading, the microcode driver and
vm86. We document these in the interest of completeness.

Finally on a -ac based tree with PnPBIOS enabled a problem existed in some
quite common BIOS implementations that causes a crash when certain 32bit
BIOS calls are made. This allowed users to crash some systems by reading
files in /proc. These files are now root private. The base tree is not
affected as it lacks PnPBIOS support

Credits

The authors would like to thank Silvio Cesare, Stas Sergeev, Andi Kleen,
Alan Cox, Solar Designer, and many others for their work on making 2.4.19 a
more secure kernel.

-- Additional Required Patch --

diff -u --new-file --recursive --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude linux.20pre1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c linux.20pre1-ac1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
--- linux.20pre1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 2002-08-06 15:40:50.000000000 +0100
+++ linux.20pre1-ac1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 2002-08-06 15:42:19.000000000 +0100
@@ -305,8 +319,13 @@
static void inline do_trap(int trapnr, int signr, char *str, int vm86,
struct pt_regs * regs, long error_code, siginfo_t *info)
{
- if (vm86 && regs->eflags & VM_MASK)
- goto vm86_trap;
+ if (regs->eflags & VM_MASK) {
+ if (vm86)
+ goto vm86_trap;
+ else
+ goto trap_signal;
+ }
+
if (!(regs->xcs & 3))
goto kernel_trap;

@@ -514,10 +533,15 @@
{
unsigned int condition;
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+ unsigned long eip = regs->eip;
siginfo_t info;

__asm__ __volatile__("movl %%db6,%0" : "=r" (condition));

+ /* If the user set TF, it's simplest to clear it right away. */
+ if ((eip >=PAGE_OFFSET) && (regs->eflags & TF_MASK))
+ goto clear_TF;
+ /* Mask out spurious debug traps due to lazy DR7 setting */
if (condition & (DR_TRAP0|DR_TRAP1|DR_TRAP2|DR_TRAP3)) {
if (!tsk->thread.debugreg[7])

Re:Why would the DMCA not allow us to see this..

[buswolley]

Damn you ...!!!

I was trying to avoid seeing that! Now what am i going to do?

Re:Why would the DMCA not allow us to see this..

[Suppafly]

Just have to go to prison now I guess.. sorry.

Don't worry, it isn't speech

[MickLinux]

Speech, as defined by the courts, consists of a large publisher being able to tell his reporters what to write. (I think I remember this from an issue regarding Drudge).

Therefore, this -- and any unfortunate statements about Bush, Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy, or any of our other illustrious fathers -- isn't speech.

Don't worry, it's still the land of the free and the home of the brave. At least, I FEEL FREE AND I FEEL I AM DEFINITELY BRAVE FOR SAYING SO, SO LEAVE ME ALONE AND DON'T AUDIT ME.

Sawing off the branch you are sitting on.

[Anonymous Coward]

A society getting too complacent...
'Land of the free' changing into 'patent land'...
Other economies will be happy to take over the vacant space!

Re:Quit your fearmongering

[Anonymous Coward]

you are exactly right. just wish one of the moderators would mod this post to "interesting" so some ppl might read it.

legislation like the DMCA, just to name one, is not limited to the borders of the US. a much more effective way of stopping these kinds of laws is if ppl complained about/to their own govts first, but sometimes i get the distinct impression that ppl just find it more fun to knock on the US.

while i'm obviously no fan of the US's DMCA, all you folks across the pond and elsewhere may want to consider looking at some of the anti-privacy laws that your countries are passing, as well (preferably before bringing the high and mighty attitude to your posts). i'm always amazed at how much non-US citizens know about bad US legislation, and how little they seem to know about the bad legislation their own countries pass.

Does anyone remember...

[moby]

...when they used to be proud to be American?

Re:Use the source?

[Hater's Leaving, The]

I couldn't read the source in teh patch, there must be some problem with it, is it encrypted or something? Here's all I got:

qvss -h --arj-svyr --erphefvir --rkpyhqr-sebz /hfe/fep/rkpyhqr yvahk.20cer1/nepu/v386/xreary/gencf.p yvahk.20cer1-np1/nepu/v386/xreary/gencf.p
--- yvahk.20cer1/nepu/v386/xreary/gencf.p2002-08-06 15:40:50.000000000 +0100
+++ yvahk.20cer1-np1/nepu/v386/xreary/gencf.p2002-08-0 6 15:42:19.000000000 +0100
@@ -305,8 +319,13 @@
fgngvp ibvq vayvar qb_genc(vag gencae, vag fvtae, pune *fge, vag iz86,
fgehpg cg_ertf * ertf, ybat reebe_pbqr, fvtvasb_g *vasb)
{
-vs (iz86 && ertf->rsyntf & IZ_ZNFX)
-tbgb iz86_genc;
+vs (ertf->rsyntf & IZ_ZNFX) {
+vs (iz86)
+tbgb iz86_genc;
+ryfr
+tbgb genc_fvtany;
+}
+
vs (!(ertf->kpf & 3))
tbgb xreary_genc;

@@ -514,10 +533,15 @@
{
hafvtarq vag pbaqvgvba;
fgehpg gnfx_fgehpg *gfx = pheerag;
+hafvtarq ybat rvc = ertf->rvc;
fvtvasb_g vasb;

__nfz__ __ibyngvyr__("zbiy %%qo6,%0" : "=e" (pbaqvgvba));

+/* Vs gur hfre frg GS, vg'f fvzcyrfg gb pyrne vg evtug njnl. */
+vs ((rvc >=CNTR_BSSFRG) && (ertf->rsyntf & GS_ZNFX))
+tbgb pyrne_GS;
+ /* Znfx bhg fchevbhf qroht gencf qhr gb ynml QE7 frggvat */
vs (pbaqvgvba & (QE_GENC0|QE_GENC1|QE_GENC2|QE_GENC3)) {
vs (!gfx->guernq.qrohtert[7])

Oh lordy, I'm probably in contravention of the QZPN?

(Christ, I can't believe how lame I am! Whatever, it made me laugh!)

THL.

no, you're allowed to read it

[Trepidity]

It's publishing the description that's illegal. Thus if the source code is indeed a description, Red Hat cannot legally publish it, regardless of whether you read it or not.

Repeat after me :

[moby]

I pledge allegiance, to the corporation,
which controls America.

And to it's CEO, and it's CFO,
for whom we kneel,
one nation, under fear,
without liberty, justice or rights until proven innocent.

Amendments [to our Constitution]

they all go to Paris, eh?

[Trepidity]

If the only Europeans US tourists come into contact with are Parisians, no wonder they think all Europeans are pompous pricks.

Thefreeslashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

http://people.nl.linux.org/~h-wolters/thefreeslash dot.jpg

Nuff said.....

Didn't count -

[Anonymous Coward]

She sucked, but she didn't swallow...

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

s/right/duty

there is nothing more important in a democracy than it's members being able to question the actions of those elected.

of course, as H.J. Simpson said once, "When will people learn? Democracy doesn't work!"

This is bloody insane

[nurb432]

This madness has gotta stop. Somone with balls ( and $$ ) has to take this DMCA ( and related ) on in the courts and rid us of its stupidity once and for all.

Re:This is bloody insane

[program21]

That's where the problem is. Most of the major players involved in some way with the DMCA are in favor of it, most of it's opponents don't have the resources to fight them.
Sure, there are plenty of other wealthy people/corportations who COULD help in the fight, but there's no reason for them to do so. Why help out people like us at their expense, unless they're helping themselves too?

It is infinitely much easier...

[hackwrench]

to trick someone who isn't free to believe he is, than it is to trick someone who is free into believing he isn't.

Think about it.

Re:It is infinitely much easier...

[jazman_777]

to trick someone who isn't free to believe he is, than it is to trick someone who is free into believing he isn't.

Think about it.

It reminds me of another saying: if you make someone think you are making them think, they'll love you. But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Think about it.

Re:It is infinitely much easier...

[Unknown Bovine Group]

It reminds me of another saying: if you make someone think you are making them think, they'll love you. But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Think about it.

I hate you.

Re:It is infinitely much easier...

[jazman_777]

I hate you.

LOL

More than a stunt

[Sloppy]

It used to be that when Alan Cox took this standpoint in regards to security updates, most people (me included) thought that he was just making a point about a theoretical technicality.

But then it actually happened in Real Life. Lawyers at HP saw how DMCA could be abused to prevent discussion about vulnerabilities, they used it to bully. Most people wouldn't have believed it six months ago, but nowdays, thanks to HP, we know that it really is plausible that DMCA could be used by someone to attack Red Hat for discussing a security problem. It's not just theoretical. It's not just paranoia. It actually happened.

So it's more than just a stunt; it's also a ridiculous but legitimate ass-covering, made necessary by a ridiculous law.

Re:More than a stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference here is that the DMCA was crafted to give corporations the ability to seek litigation in response to actions which are harmful to them. The US Dept of Justice has no great interest in doing the enforcement for these corporations. A corporation, therefore, would most certainly not be prosecuted for releasing its own security vulnerabilities. Unless this vulnerability exists in, say, SuSe, who could then sue RH.

Is a strawman the best way to protest the DMCA?

[terraformer]

If I read all of this right, it appears that the discoverers of the bug copyrighted their white paper in a way that prohibited distribution to anyone in the US. Thereby allowing them to invoke the DMCA if they so choose. As the register article points out, Red Hat was forced to go along with this because the authors of the bug whitepaper wanted to prove a point. With all of the real issues (Here & here) surrounding the DMCA, why are we even wasting our time with this?

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right... democracy obviously doesn't work.
Nevermind for a second that your quality of life is substantially higher than people of other, less democratic countries.

You still live in a land that is is "more free" than just about any other in the world. I dislike the DMCA as much as any other observant Canadian citizen, but why not fly down to say, China, India, or Africa and see how much luck you have repealing laws.

The reason why you have all sorts of restrictive laws is that the overwhelming majority of people don't seem to care. Whether they are ignorant of the facts or just plain lazy is left up to you to decide. However, your "democracy in the US sucks so I don't want to do anything about it" attitude is part of the reason you feel cheated.

Wanna do something about it? Spread education about these laws and what they mean to the everyman. If you can do that, without mentioning Ogg Vorbis (as many linux using digital rights "activists" are wont to do) then you just may start the momentum needed to change things. If you aren't willing to do that, then shut the hell up. Bitching about the democratic process on slashdot has never accomplished anything.

Knowledge is Criminal?

[zentec]

The mere thought that knowledge is criminal is patently absurd. This nonsense is further proof that US corporations prefer the American public as dumb as possible.

A preferably dumb American consumer is simply fuel for the machine. Don't ask, just pay us and thank us for providing you with insert good or service here?.

Hopefully, within the Supreme Court, will see that the rights of free speech trump this ridiculous law.

Re:Knowledge is Criminal?

[sineltor]

thought that knowledge is criminal is patently absurd.

hmm... interesting idea

*looks up the patent office site*

Re:Knowledge is Criminal?

[Col. Panic]

The mere thought that knowledge is criminal is patently absurd

This has always been the way of the world.

Praising science over religion was illegal.

Saying the King was wrong was illegal.

Arguing that information wants to be free is illegal.

Knowledge is power, and government - democratic or otherwise - is about control. No government wants its citizens to know everything, so some things are always going to be illegal, classified, top secret, etc, etc.

Luckily, information does want to be free, so it will be.

1860s tech, actually

[upper]

It's not 1980's technology, it's 1860's technology. Thomas Edison's first patent was for an "Electronic Vote Recorder" system to do this. Congress rejected it, but most state legislatures have been using something like this for a century.

I suspect that Congress likes the current system. Voice votes let members hide their votes, and roll-call voting gives them more opportunities to play games.

Re:Don't you get it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until terrorist hostilities are ended? So now we can hold them till the end of time?

US Citizen? You're basically fucked (as I am)...

[crazyphilman]

Consider the options:

1. Live under the DMCA. Linux developers, who live all around the globe, start snubbing US Citizens because of DMCA fears (mostly legitimate). So as a US Citizen, you don't really have an open source O/S anymore -- no one is sharing source or info with you!

Result: You have a Microsoft-like "Patch and Pray" situation developing. You don't know what the patches do, or whether you want or need them. You're a mushroom -- you're kept in the dark and fed bullshit. LOVELY. Switch to FreeBSD. Or maybe OpenBSD. Whatever.

2. You get fed up with the DMCA and move elsewhere, in hopes of finding a new country whose intellectual environment is supposedly more open and accessible. I don't personally endorse this (I love NY) but hell, it might be ok for people less attached to their environs.

Result: You're surrounded by people who despise George W. Bush and see you as their personal GWBush voodoo doll. So they harangue and harass you about every screwed up thing the U.S. does as if you personally ordered it. Everyone hates you. You can't walk twenty feet down the street without some French psycho grabbing your collar and screaming at you for being "imperialist scum" (or whatever the current anti-US epithet is, I can't keep track). As soon as word gets out that an American lives nearby, terrorists swoop in and cut off your head, if you haven't killed yourself from depression already. No one cries at your funeral, and the stonecarver deliberately misspells your name.

Not really an option. I'd say maybe Canada, but even they don't like us anymore. I have a friend living in the Far East, but then, some people got their heads cut off over there recently, so that's out. Ok...

3. Become an activist and protest the DMCA, start political rallies, support the green party, etc. Raise all kinds of hell in hopes of altering the status quo.

Result: with the FBI's newly restored powers (they've recently gotten back the powers stripped from them after Watergate, in case you haven't heard) they identify you as a rabble rouser, anti-American whatsis, etc and so forth, and you get busted for every possible thing you could get busted for right down to jaywalking. We're talking the total Abbie Hoffman treatment. Eventually you go into hiding or get so depressed you kill yourself (or some CIA spook helps you kill yourself, either way).

FACE IT, CHUMS! I've already resigned myself to it. I am doomed. I fully understand this. So, the hell with it. I'll stay right where I am, where at least my neighbors like me. Maybe I'll get stuck with Palladium, maybe I'll get stuck with the DMCA. Fuck it. There's FUCK-ALL I can do about it anyway.

And, if people won't tell me what kernel patches do, if they snub me for things that are totally out of my control, well, screw it. I'll switch to BSD. Or maybe something else. Adapt, improvise, overcome.

One thing's for certain: I'm not travelling ourside our borders ever again. NOBODY likes us. EVERYONE hates us. Time to stay home and fire up the Playstation!

Copyright Violation...

[Dareth]

Shouldn't this just be posted on Kaaza et al with all the other copyright violations?!?

Copyright Violation

[Dareth]

Shouldn't this be posted on Kaaza with all the other copyright violations?!?

I seem to remember...

[cnelzie]

Learning in school that we are a Republic... In fact, there was something that we did every morning to reinforce that...

"...and to the Republic, for which it stands..."

Are you saying that the Pledge of Allegiance is wrong?

Should it say, "...and to the Representative Democracy, for which it stands..."?

Check the following link, it leads to a site that will explain our form of government to you in elementary terms. You should take a few more politcal science classes before you start talking about government, my friend.

What is a Republic?

Re:I seem to remember...

[drxenos]

Anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing, nor is the colloquial use of terms. During the Cold War, they added "under God" to the pledge. Does that prove the existence of God? Roman was a Republic; Ancient Greece was a Democrary. We are neither. I don't know what your Kidergaren teacher is telling you, but in my Political Science courses way back in college, we did learn that the US is a Representative Democrary. You should study more and not blindly believe everything that a single source tells you.

What I'd like to see...

[josh crawley]

What I'd like to see is a state here in the US to fully denounce DMCA act and put a bill in with the state congress nullifying the DMCA. If the state was a less tech oriented state (my state, Indiana), they'd have an overflow of 'Interesting' jobs not able anywhere else.

Course, the main problem with Indiana is the Inventory Tax racket. That alone is kicking shitloads of jobs out ;-(

Enough with my state and my hairbrained idea.

And I almost forgot, I read the Patchlog too :-P

Re:This is just FUD. No, necessary evil.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If I spank my kid in public, the DA (District Attorney) will go back to my H.S. classmates and former employers....

Even the most incompetent defense attorney will never let that sort of thing get into evidence. That's character evidence, and it's only permitted under certain narrow circumstances.

If the character of the defendant is in question, character testimony can be entered into the record, but prosecutors don't have a free hand to say anything they want during the trial. If you're on trial for embezzling a million dollars, the prosecution would be able to introduce evidence that you were convicted of embezzling before, because it establishes your character as a person who is not opposed to embezzling on moral grounds. But they couldn't put your ex-girlfriend on the stand for her to say, "Um... yeah, he lost that job, cause... like... he was stealin' staplers an' shit." That's not permitted in any court, for any reason.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am going to read a site that is potentially illegal here in the USA and I am going to register with my name and address? In this day and age of W and Ashcroft? an age where we bypassed posse commitatus? where we imprison people for years on end without trial? where we put innocent ppl to death?
I don't think so

Re:So...

[xtremex]

Ahh...the liberal left-wing communists get their way again......this is for our PROTECTION, remember...We all have to be EQUAL and the govt is NOT the enemy..it's our fellow man!
Seriously, I hope every US citizen knows why there is the right to own and bare arms in the constitution. To prevent the govt from taking too much control (remember the revolutioary war?). They take away thew right to protect ourselves from them, and they win...

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Ahh...the liberal left-wing communists get their way again....

and exactly what does the liberal left-wing communist get in their way????
If you are talking about the DMCA, it was voted in by all members of senate, and almost all members of house.
As to our protection and equality of government, should we start refering to W and Ashcroft as comrade or fuerher?

As to the matters of guns and the right to bare arms, I think that is what Waco and OK. were all about. Perhaps that is what anthrax and the current sniper is all about.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

right to own and bare arms
Oh good. I was worried the gubberment would make rolling up my sleeves when things get too hot illegal.

Re:So...

[xtremex]

not get IN their way, they get their way....now, the fact that it a unanimous vote means that 100% of the politicians were NOT looking out for the people, just the elite.

Re:So...

[RoninM]

Ahh..the liberal left-wing communists get their way again...

Why would the Communists act in favor of large, independent corporations? (Aren't we a bit beyond McCarthyism and the red scare?) And, being one of those liberals (but not a Communist), I must refute your claim that I got my way... I just checked under my desk; I can assure you that none of the women I wanted to be under there, were.

[...] the govt is NOT the enemy..it's our fellow man!

I thought ours was the government by, for, and of the people? What article was it in which the Founders called the US Government evil?

Seriously, I hope every US citizen knows why there is the right to own and bare arms in the constitution.

Piffle! There's a huge gap between the intent of the Second Amendment and its role today. The Second Amendment has provided no protection against the Government for around a century. In case you missed the memo, the United States has a very large, very powerful standing army. If you and your hunting buddies want to face off against a tank when you think the Government has crossed the line, feel free -- we'll scrape you up afterwards. Should you try to refute this claim of my mine (and I encourage and enjoy reasoned debate), please avoid some common, utterly avoidable errors.

First, don't tell me how much force the Government would or wouldn't use should their be a violent uprising and revolution. If we're going to deal in hypotheticals, we should at least do so in a consistent, logical manner. A violent uprising of a significant number must be prompted by something that polarizes and emboldens the great many that don't already live on political extremes. Thus, inherent in our argument is the assumption that this hypothetical Government has become so evil, that its people are left with no course but to (violently) rebel. It's clearly illogical to place limits on what this evil Government would be willing to justify -- especially when it has no-one to answer to.

Second, don't rely on some fluff like, "If enough people, ..." as that's vague, trivially true, and wholly unlikely. It's vague because there's no possible, concrete determination of how many is enough. It's trivially true because if you got everyone to fight for your cause, then you'd have no-one to fight against (and, thus, be victorious). It's wholly unlikely because you need a significant number to fight a vastly better connected, better supported, better armed, better trained army. Who would arm, mobilize, and tend to such a large militia? Besides, I can't imagine that this big bad US Government would somehow live in isolation of all other countries, if the situation became so dire. That the International community would neither interfere with the US's evil deeds (step in to fight for you) or assist in squelching the mass uprising (step in to fight against you) doesn't make a whole lot of sense outside of Hollywood and other ill-conceived fantasies.

They take away thew right to protect ourselves from them, and they win...

Your argument is broken. It's assuming that the Second Amendment does protect us from the Government (which, if you can't guess, I believe to be utter hogwash), that it's the only protection we have against the Government (it isn't; the inherent disorganization and ebb of Government protects us -- this is why Bush's dictatorial grab for broader executive power is dangerous), and that there is some surreptitious "they" already waging a war against you (I'm guessing, of course, for any person, X, "they" is the group, real or imagined, that doesn't agree with X's politics).

Re:So...

[xtremex]

Not to get into a political debate, I have to say that the Constitution was written with the memories of the Revolutionary still in the air. The US revolted against the UK! Remember? The gov't is there to guard and protect us, not to feed us. per se. If you have a guard dog, and put them on a chain, they can perform their duty. However, if you leave the guard dog untied, and let him roam, he'll eventually take charge of your house and start shitting on your bed.Likewise with the government..keep it untethered, and eventually it will do what it damn well pleases. Remember the ancient Roman saying, not long before Rome fell? Give the "Bread and Circus". Give them food and keep them entertained, and they won't care how corrupt the government is. Keep people drunk with MTV and propaganda, and make everone happy and no one will give a shit about how corrupt the US is. The liberal politicians of today don't give a crap about the American people. They want votes, and will do anythng they can to get votes. They are master spin doctors. Liberals ultimately look out for politicians and the elite and whatever "agendas" are on the platform this week. This country is losing its identity with increased corporate globalism. What ever happened to "Border, language, culture"? That's what the definition of a nation is..we no longer have either.
Visit my site http://www.crimeagainstamerica.com for more info on these travesties. You are probably not really a liberal. You just lean to the left. Liberals of today are not the liberals of 50 years ago....the agendas have changed big time.Kennedy was the last "real" liberal. And probably the best president we have had in recent history..he CARED for the American public and was looking out for us, thus beig the reason he got shot.

Re:So...

[dylan_-]

Seriously, I hope every US citizen knows why there is the right to...bare arms in the constitution.

So that's why t-shirts are so popular in the US...

Thjis is the funniest shit I have ever read.

[buswolley]

This is the funniest shit I have ever read.

Had to say it twice

DMCA exceptions for security?

[ryochiji]

Doesn't the DMCA make exceptions for security related issues? I haven't done extensive research, but I was told this by one security consultant, and also found this here:

Security testing (section 1201(j)). This exception permits circumvention of access control measures, and the development of technological means for such circumvention, for the purpose of testing the security of a computer, computer system or computer network, with the authorization of its owner or operator.

I'm wondering if RH's move isn't really out of necessity but more of a publicity stunt. I'm by no means for the DMCA, but would someone care to clarify?

Re:DMCA exceptions for security?

[Methuseus]

That blurb you found merely states that if you want to see how secure your program is, I can break the DMCA as pertains to your program (or system as the case may be) as long as I have your permission. I probably would also need to alert the "authorities" so they don't have any objections. It has nothing to do with this case since this case is fixing a security problem rather than finding one.

How's that work?

[bill_mcgonigle]

How does Massachusetts get around the National Supremacy clause of the US Constitution? That'd be a good trick.

Re:How's that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

They just ignore it, like California did when they legalized pot for medicinal purposes.

Obligatory Futurama Quote

[infernow]

"From this day forth, Robot House is on Dodecatuple Secret Probation."
-Dean Vernon

Re:This is just FUD. No, necessary evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

gee -- your explaination was about as clear as mud

Re:One day...

[Dexter's Laboratory]

People say, "in a democratic society, you get what you deserve." Too bad you get what others deserve, too.

Freedom is not a consequence of democracy.
Democracy is not a requirement for freedom.

Re:One day...

[jnana]

Too many asshats that don't know jack squat.

As opposed to our many selfless, genius congress members?

Re:This is just FUD. No, necessary evil.

[Havokmon]

Even the most incompetent defense attorney will never let that sort of thing get into evidence.

Damnit. I forgot "IANAL", and maybe I didn't explain the point; The U.S.courts of law are more concerned with grand displays than simple facts. 'He hit her' is much less thrilling than 'He savagely beat her'.

The only way to win is to NOT be 'average'. You have to be polar opposites.

Relevant portion of the DMCA

[SiliconEntity]

For reference, here is the relevant portion of the DMCA:

`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- `(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; `(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or `(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

I can understand that people may be worried about publishing kernel patches, but careful reading of the above makes it very clear that these do not violate the DMCA, even if they inadvertantly or implicitly reveal information that could be used to defeat copyright protection. The reason is simply that this is not the primary design and purpose of the information. Rather, the information is designed to extend and improve the functionality of the Linux kernel.

Contrast this with the Sklyarov case, where the primary purpose of the information and technology he presented was to defeat copyright protection. The situations are completely different.

I can't blame Europeans for being excessively cautious with regard to American law, but they could consult with a lawyer and be reassured. My opinion is that this is really a political statement, and that they are being disingenuous in claiming to be afraid of prosecution.

Re:Relevant portion of the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

In this instance you *may* be correct. But the water gets pretty muddy here. Who makes the "primary purpose" judgement? Let's look at a hypothetical: A copy protection application on my system software causes a serious security vulnerability in another application due to an unintended consequence. Also assume that both the protected and vulnerable application are mission critical, and the only way to resolve the issue is to remove or disable the copy-protection. Also, assume that we are in the open source world. Publishing the "fix" to remove the copy protection would be problematic. First, the primary reason for the "fix" is to remove copy protection, albeit for a good reason. Second, it definitely has limited "commercial significance". It's free! So,you are hostage to a potential INTERPRETATION of what the primary purpose is. You can rest assured that if the RIAA or MPA was affected, they would argue that the primary purpose is to steal their IP and that the other issue is just an excuse to be able to put the bypass information out there.

Re:Relevant portion of the DMCA

[Xepherys2]

Click Here for my other post on this topic.

The basis of which is that it's all a matter of interpretation, and the law tends to side with the less reasonable more often than not (in the US). Hence people can sue McDonald's for hot coffee and the like. Reason holds no light to law. And I'm not trying to be flamebait, or start an argument amongst us, but if you look at cases logically, ESPECIALLY in technology, where there are fewer experts than one would expect by counting the number of epople who proclaim themselves as technology experts, you would surely see an imbalance in the law where technology is concerned.

-Xeph

Re:Relevant portion of the DMCA

[Alsee]

(A) the "primary design or use of something" has been getting an extremely broad and biased interpretation in court. Substantial legitimate use has not been a sucessfull defense.

(B) The explanation of the patch could quite easily be ruled to have "limited commercially significant purpose". Substantial legitimate uses have been ruled to have limited commercially significance.

(C) marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing - if someone else DID "market" the information in that manner, do you really want to defend yourself against charges that that you might have known?

So, all three clauses *could* lead to trouble.

careful reading of the above makes it very clear that these do not violate the DMCA

Because you are trying to read as a good and reasonable law. The problem is that it is a bad, unreasonable, and badly flawed law. The core issue is that DRM fails completely if there is ever a leak anywhere. If one copy of something escapes it can be copied a million times on the internet. If a DRM sceme is circumvented then EVERYTHING protected by that scheme could escape. The DMCA fails to do its job of protecting DRM unless its effects are broad and cover even the most innocent cases. Courts have been interpreting it in the broadest manner possible.

-

Re:One day...

[DohDamit]

Wow. I'm used to this kind of hilariously blatant idiocy being tied to an AC, not a bonafide dumb ass willing to sign his name. First time for everything...

Congressional members are elected by a popular vote. Ashcroft, who(slows down and uses small words) is NOT a congressional member, is an appointee who had to get congressional approval to take office after the President nominated him.

Off-topic? Yes. Informative? Yes. Interesting? No. Funny? Only if you think the guy above is funny.

Two words for you, buddy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Off. Topic.

House Cleaning.

[RatBastard]

Then we vote against every one of those scum suckers. Let the next group know that we're won't put up with this crap anymore.

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

And in California alone, one and a half million military votes weren't counted, due to the overwhelming count towards Gore. If the military vote had been added, Bush would've had a million vote victory by popular vote. Get it straight.

NO NO NO --- JUST NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ding -- WRONG ANSWER.

Linux does not provide DMCA type copy protection -- PERIOD.

First, I can image the disk using any of a number of tools, linux and all, and pull off the data therin without no assistance from Linux, or any patch you may apply.

Second, fact #1 is well known, widely public, and the intended function of the platform. Therfor it cannot be claimed to protect copyright -- and thus cannot be used to circumvent a "protection" it doesn't provide.

Third, root owns all access to the system. Nothing is protected from the right to copy. User accounts enjoy access at the lesiure of root, root applies the patches, root can't circumvent.

Anything created by a 'root' user is free of the DMCA. root is allowed to do as they please with their system.

Fact is, in the US, "intent" is required to a commit criminal act. Where is the intent to circumvent copyright behind these patches?

Re:This is just FUD. No, necessary evil.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The U.S.courts of law are more concerned with grand displays than simple facts.

Well, that's not really true either. US courts of law-- as opposed to what you see on the evening news-- are very much concerned with simple facts. Attorneys appeal to emotion; that's part of their job, to persuade the jury. But when all is said and done, the decision is based on the facts of the case. This is how things are supposed to work, on papers, and it's also how they work in real life.

another possible test..

[hikeran]

My question is this.. if a website was defaced and the new defaced site was encrypted (aka the entire site not just the defacing) would repairng the dammage done be a violation of the DCMA??

i can only say one this:

[Anonymous Coward]

USA SUCKS HAIRY BALLZ> WTF THEY BEEN THINKING!?!??!?!!?!
this gets me really mad..good thing i dont live there anymore...

So, does this make...

[Codifex Maximus]

some shows like McGuyver and some movies like The Eraser violations of the DMCA?

I mean, they could use the techniques explained in the shows to circumvent security.

Does the "No citizens of the USA" also include members of government and the armed forces?

CDrom burners, modems, network cards/networks, routers, the Internet could all be construed as contributing to the security problem. Heck, a car could be used as a tool to move sensitive material... is the auto mfg responsible because someone broke into the car?

Is posting a bunch of what-if ideas a violation of the DMCA?

OH MY GOD! I just heard a loud knock at the door...

I read it even though I'm a US citizen

[Yottabyte84]

Come kiss me ass, you stupid feds.

Re:I read it even though I'm a US citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

You have violated US law please stay by your computer for the authorities.

Re:I read it even though I'm a US citizen

[Yottabyte84]

As I said, they can kiss my ass. It's called a calculated risk. Either they will do nothing, showing others that they need not be so uptight, because the only people who are at risk to being busted are those that distribute information. If they take me away, so be it. I will make sure I become a poster-child, like mitnick and dimerty (how the fsck do you spell that?). I would hopefuly raise awareness, possibly even get parts of the DMCA thrown down in court. No matter what... I WIN

And if the fed DO want to bust me, they better do it by this weekend, since I'm doing a fresh OS install which will be setup to encrypt all my data, and after I transfer the data from my old drives, I will run a multi-pass wipe on them, rendering them unreadable*

*unless they have really weird ways to read old data after it's been overwritten several times that cost something sane.

Security holes have NOTHING to do with the DMCA !!

[Tom7]

This is really stupid and childish. I'll be the first to condemn the DMCA (after my own legal troubles with it), but this is not the way to go about it.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not a lawyer though I have studied the DMCA and lawsuits based on it carefully), but the DMCA absolutely does not ban security information. The only related things that it addresses are circumvention (of protection technology in order to access a copyrighted work) and trafficking in circumvention devices. Security information (especially in the form of a vague changelog) is absolutely not either of those. By no stretch of the imagination can I figure out how it's supposed to be a violation of the DMCA.

What's really going on here? Someone (Alan Cox) is trying to make a point about the control that the DMCA gives to copyright holders. He's placed a piece of his copyrighted information that some people want (text of the kernel changelog) behind a click-through license that says you can't access it if you're from the USA. In my opinion this has fuck-all to do with the DMCA (because there is no "technological measure" to circumvent -- please read the definition of technological measure in the DMCA if you disagree with me), just click-through licenses, but, whatever. Then Red Hat decides, well, we can't copy that information because the copyright holder has told us we can't. Assuming that such click-through licenses are legal in the first place, of course, RH would be entirely within its rights for a non-US-citizen to license the document and then summarize it for Red Hat. Either they are too lazy for this, don't understand the issues involved, or are perpetuating this same bizarre notion that the DMCA makes every single thing you'd want to do illegal.

The DMCA only has to do with copyright, and only as far as circumventing technological measures that protect copyrighted material. The court enjoined DeCSS because it found it to be a circumvention device (they did NOT enjoin english descriptions of the algorithm, and especially not security notices about CSS being weak!). I don't agree with the decision, but at least it makes sense in terms of the law. (I also don't agree with the law!!)

The important point I'm trying to make is that to fight dumb laws like the DMCA, we need to understand what they really say and what the actual implications are. There's a tendency for hackers to use logical deduction ("If DeCSS is illegal because it can be used to break DVDs, then hammers must be illegal because they can be used to smash open store windows!") in order to decide the implications of a law. THIS IS NOT HOW COURTS WORK! Law is much more squishy than that. Making these sorts of alarmist claims, as if the DMCA outlaws everything that we'd ever want to do, hurts our cause by spreading misinformation. Instead, we should be educating people about what the DMCA actually addresses (ie, "Did you know it would be illegal for you to create MP3s from SACDs that you bought?" or "Did you know that it's illegal to buy mod chips for your Playstation so that you can play imported games that you also legally purchased?" or "Did you know that it's illegal to use your screen-reader software with the eBook that you legally bought?"). That's how we can convince people that the law is wrong.

(--- Please Read!

[Tom7]

I posted late, but I hope my comment won't get lost in all of the noise...

Re:(--- Please Read!

[sopwath]

Some of us read "Newest First"

I don't think its meant to actually protect against a stupid law. Its for making a point.

Remember a few months back (last year or something) when Adobe threatened some professors who were giving a strictly academic study of the security of its e-book things... (I just got home from school, I'm tired, I can't remember specifics. Hopefully you know what I'm talking about here)

OK so that was basically a discussion of specific security risks. They had to stop because the discussion was considered a touchy subject, they'd already done the research and found the holes and such. Its kind of the same thing with this now. (Alan Cox did it a few months back too) They are trying to make it very clear how stupid the DMCA really is.

To the retard politicians, they aren't gonna get it unless people start to complain about how they can't get security fixes because they violate the DMCA. Only when it starts to hurt a huge number of people or a bunch of biger businesses will they care. It takes extreme (sarcastic) measures like this to get normal people, who don't pay attention to this stuff, to care.

Its a shitty way to do it, but what else can we do?

sopwath

Re:(--- Please Read!

[Tom7]

> To the retard politicians, they aren't gonna get it unless people start to complain about how they can't get security fixes
> because they violate the DMCA. Only when it starts to hurt a huge number of people or a bunch of biger businesses will they
> care. It takes extreme (sarcastic) measures like this to get normal people, who don't pay attention to this stuff, to care.

Sure, but this is really senseless when the DMCA doesn't have anything to say about security releases. It's like if someone at a fast food restaurant refuses to serve you french fries until marijuana is legalized. Sure, maybe this will upset a bunch of people, but will it really convince politicians to legalize marijuana?

The case you mention was about a professor (Felten) intending to publish a report on an SDMI watermarking technology in which he essentially breaks the system. (This of course was in response to the SDMI challenge!) He received threats, some of which were about the DMCA, from the RIAA, SDMI, and some other company. They never carried through to sue him (eventually they stated that they had never intended to), and in any case probably would have not gotten very far in court because his paper could hardly be considered a "circumvention device". (Not to mention that the DMCA has some exceptional clauses for security researchers.) Nonetheless, it would be fair to say that the DMCA was used as a weapon to try to chill his free speech rights, and it was somewhat effective.

However, even assuming that this had some possibility of being illegal, it's still in a totally different league from a redhat security advisory: it was highly technical (essentially containing instructions on how to defeat the protection), and actually concerned protection measures for copyrighted content. The kernel changelog was neither technical nor did it have to do with protection measures nor was it related to copyrighted content.

Re:(--- Please Read!

[Xepherys2]

Well, there are a few things to look at here though...

First, there are ways in which a case could be worded where a changelog that specifically discussed key files in a security breach of a system could be linked to a tool written to breach that hole, thereby making the authors in violation of the DMCA for supplying information to "hackers" making a utility for bypassing the security of a system. To the law, the worst case scenario seems to win out. If it was presented to a judge that Mr. Joe Nobody wrote a changelog entry defining file xyzzy.c that has hole 'a' in it which causes this issue... and Mr. Jack Cracka makes a program based on that info, and Master Script Kiddie then uses that program to take down a server for some company, it could be construed that Mr. Nobody's original document allowed for circumvention of system security and therefore was in violation of the DMCA. See?

Secondly, the vast majority of people in the non-tech fields, and specifically law, have little understanding of how technologies work. Things can be said wholly out of context without seeming apparent to a judge, lawyer, jury, etc. Without proper understanding, and with realization that a "secutiry expert" or "technology expert" put on the stand may not know what an LCD or an RS232 is... a trial can go to hell quickly, without proper cause.

Just my view points... feel free to rebut, but I think I'm fairly on target with this...

-Xeph

YES YES YES

[schon]

Linux does not provide DMCA type copy protection -- PERIOD

YES, IT DOES -- PERIOD

Assuming you have a file named "copyrighted_file", which contains copyrighted text, the following command:

$ chmod 600 copyrighted_file.txt

will "effectively" prevent access to it by the system - this is all that's required under the DMCA to qualify as a "technological measure", as per section 1201-3:

(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

In layspeak: if something stops you from looking at something without someone's permission, then it 'effectively controls access'.

This is the main purpose of the +r bit in file permissions.

Re:YES YES YES

[Aldurn]

Then again, if you get access to copyrighted_file.txt, the technological measure wasn't very "effective", now was it?

Re:YES YES YES

[Megahurts]

(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

In layspeak: if something stops you from looking at something without someone's permission, then it 'effectively controls access'.

But what exactly does 'effectively' mean?

(and yeah, it may be silly to link to a cartoon, but it raises a VERY good point. The first definition in the two dictionaries at hand right now list something like "in an effective way" as the first (and predominant?) definition of 'effective')

Re:YES YES YES

[schon]

if you get access to copyrighted_file.txt, the technological measure wasn't very "effective", now was it?

*sigh*

(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

READ, PARSE, COMPREHEND.

You need some work on the last one. The meaning of the word "Effective" is spelled out.

Re:YES YES YES

[Anonymous Coward]

> will "effectively" prevent access to it by the system

Bzzt. "the system" is root, and root will always have access.

Bzzt 2. "the system" can be copied using a DOS tool that images the disk. Linux does not 'effectively' control the access. Indeed, it doesn't control it at all.

Re:YES YES YES

[CrazyDuke]

Attention: I am about to violate the DMCA.

To circumvent the copy protection explained in the parent:

1. su root
2. cd /etc/CRfs
3. chmod 777 copyrighted_file.txt
4. exit
5. cp copyrighted_file.txt /mnt/piratedstuff ;P

Re:YES YES YES

[Anonymous Coward]

You give everyone root access to your box?

Re:YES YES YES

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux does not provide DMCA type copy protection -- PERIOD

YES, IT DOES -- PERIOD

Assuming you have a file named "copyrighted_file", which contains copyrighted text, the following command:

$ chmod 600 copyrighted_file.txt

No it does not -- PERIOD, EXCLAMATION POINT!!!

1. chmod is NOT part of the Linux kernel.

2. Any system administrator who backed up that
file would be guilty of violating the DMCA?
BULLSHIT!!

2. File permissions are no more a copyright
protection device than a door lock.
Describing the method for picking a door lock
is NOT illegal.

Re:YES YES YES

[Anonymous Coward]

You could just

1. su

2. chown nobody copyrighted_file.txt

Re:YES YES YES

[Anonymous Coward]

YES IT IS!

1. chmod is only an user interface. File system driver, which most certainly IS part of linux kernel, does the actual permission modification.

2. Actually, yes. He probably would. This one doesn't need even DMCA, if sysadmin is copying other peoples copyrighted works it's a violation.

3. Care to explain why file permissions could not be a protection device? They very effectively stop other people from accessing the files. If you are going to pull that "but root has access to them anyway" -explanation, let's assume that I am the root. I have copyrighted files on my system. I also have user accounts for other people. I don't want those other people to access my files, and file permissions are clearly enought to do the job. In this case, they serve no other purpose and thus clearly are a copyright protection device.

Re:YES YES YES

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. But then, it's just not my job to protect other people's copyright under DMCA.

Under DMCA only works created by the holder of the root account, and in physical control of the machine, might be able to torture an argument claiming DMCA protections under Linux. Everyone else, everyone, is out of scope.

Even so, root's argument would be truely tourtured since they have no care, custody, control, or financial interest in the ability of Linux to provide such protection.

DMCA is a copyright act. 'Access' can only be construed in the terms of actually preventing the making one physical copy from another -- not in a way to construe a limit on PHYSICAL access to a lawfully existing copy.

DM*C*A can only prevent you from making a copy from a work you have physical access to. Laws other than copyright cover crimes of wrongfully gaining physical access.

chmod doesn't make a copy, it grants physical access. Just as if I handed you a physical DVD.

So, 'access' in terms of DMCA can only be interpreted as to prevent you from making copies from works you have physical access to. Unless you have +r access to a file, and Linux can stop you from using cp, then DMCA does not apply, and can not apply.

All security in Linux is, basically, focused on making sure chmod works. chmod does not make copies, cp does. Craking chmod is a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse acts, not the DMCA.

I'm sick of this shit

[P0lyh34)]

I'm so fucking sick of being a fucking US citezen, why couldn't i have been born in a properly functioning country, one where the people aren't so fucking lazy as to let the government run amok like this. I hate america, fuck america, fuck america in its ass till it bleeds! I know this is the wrong place for this, but i had to get it off my chest, i can only take so much of this garbage. I want everyone on the planet to know that i'm sick of fucking living here, and to those that think this is all perfecty OK, i hope someone fly's a jumbo jet into your naiborhood. In any decent run country A situation like this would have cuased such a public outcry the government would have to repeal such a law to prevent riots! Home of the brave, my ass. Home of the free, my ass.

It was unanimous, no web site needed

[Anonymous Coward]

The Senate vote was 100-0. The House voted similarly.

We have the best government money can buy.

You're lucky, we can't vote them out

[Anonymous Coward]

Missouri had a very unpopular Senator. This fellow raised the ire of about everyone in Missouri, as he constantly voted his pocket instead of Missouri's or the USA's interests.

The people of Missouri had enough and decided they would rid themselves of this corrupt political hack once and for all.

Unfortunately for the people of Missouri, the fellow that was running against the incumbant Senator died a month before the election, with no time for the Democrats to nominate another.

The people of Missouri voted the corpse in, and in a landslide no less.

The same election brought a new President, and George W. Bush appointed the ex-Senator Ashcroft to the position of Attorney General.

"Will of the people" my ass. This November I vote straight Libertarian. Meanwhile, you Canadian fellows are lucky, living in a representative democracy instead of a sleazy, plutocratic autarchy.

Re:You're lucky, we can't vote them out

[alexo]

Meanwhile, you Canadian fellows are lucky, living in a representative democracy [...]

Actually, on the federal level, we are a constitutional monarchy.

Re:You're lucky, we can't vote them out

[sloveless]

"The people of Missouri voted the corpse in, and in a landslide no less."

No, we didn't. John Ashcroft was actually ahead in some polls until Mel Carnahan died. Many of us believe that without a "sympathy vote" for Carnahan, Ashcroft would have taken the election.

Here is an exit poll to mull over.

http://www.cbsnews.com/campaign2000results/state /p oll_moos-.html

Lots of interesting statistics, but not much indication of a landslide.

Re:You're lucky, we can't vote them out

[Anonymous Coward]

Voters felt that Carnahan was still more alive than Ashcroft.

HR 2281 (otherwise known as DMCA) details...

[Brendan Byrd]

Here. Directly for the Library of Congress' site. You can find any bill there, if you know how to search for it. The thing that puzzles me is that I can't find a roll call for this.

Re:HR 2281 (otherwise known as DMCA) details...

[zeno_2]

Im still pretty sure that the DMCA was done by a voice vote, and the people who voted were not recorded...

I found the dates that the DMCA was introduced and what not, and near the bottom it mentions that there was a voice vote. Now if this is the actual vote by the Senate on the bill or not, its hard to say, as I don't understand it much, but I did not see any other links or anything that described a roll call, or any sort of formal vote..

Here is where I was looking at.

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well thank you, I'm sure the American public will read your comment here on Slashdot, all the hundreds of millions of them, and will take your message to heard.

I mean, really. Do you think anyone on Slashdot that isn't a lamer troll making pornographic "first posts" would be naive enough to vote for anyone currently in congress? Who are you directing this message toward? The public? Practically everyone here knows what the DMCA is, the people you need to educate likely just bought a computer..they know it works, and they hear rumours in Microsoft-supported magazines that pretty soon, sparkly new Palladium processors will come out that make them immune to viruses. How about that -- no viruses any more!

If you really value your freedom that much, try preaching that message to the village idiots that are taking it away from you.

Republic vs. Democracy

[Unordained]

[quote]You aren't despairing about us, then. Greece was the birthplace of democracy, but democracy is unstable, and never lasts long anywhere. The US has always been a republic. Insofar as we can avoid democracy, we have a chance to keep our freedoms.[unquote]

could you elaborate on how you see a republic as being more stable and more secure (for its citizens) than a democracy? what inherent part of democracy makes it unstable?

Re:Republic vs. Democracy

[Alsee]

what inherent part of democracy makes it unstable?

Because pure democracy becomes completely unworkable when there's any sizeable number of people involved. In a pure democracy everyone would get vote on every bill. That is already a full-time job for senators and congressmen. It's hard enough having general elections for the president. Could you imagine doing that for every obscure bill that's voted on? Probably the first thing that would happen is that most everyone would vote to eliminate all taxes and the the entire government would cease to exist.

-

Re:Republic vs. Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

why do people like you walk around making some absurd definition of the word "democracy"? you are wrong. look at the dictionary definitions: democracy and republic

also note that you said "pure democracy" the second time around: this self-quibbling indicates that you even suspect that you are wrong.

Re:Republic vs. Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is a constitutional democratic republic. We elect people to represent us and make choices about legistlation and vote. The legislative branch of government levies taxes, creates laws, and declares war provided that it is legal under our constituion to do so. The laws are then signed or vetoed by the President (executive branch.) If a law is deemed unconstituional by our judicial branch then it is stricken. There are a couple of ways to amend our constitution but it very difficult to do so.

Under a democracy the will of the people rules, not law or a constitution. In a democracy, once people realize that they can abolish all taxes and/or grant themselves entitlements, the government collapses quickly.

Before you malign the processes of our government you should learn a little about it first. As far as the definitions go, read "republic" definition 2 a and b. Then read "democracy" defintion 4. Those are the meanings by which the Untited States defines the two words. If any word is missused enough it tends to eventually take on the meaning of the misuse. Remember our Constitution was drafted in the late 18th century and the English language has evolved quite a bit since then, no thanks to the misinformed.

Re:Republic vs. Democracy

[Alsee]

why do people like you walk around making some absurd definition of the word "democracy"?

The word "democracy" is commonly misused to mean "republic". It is a common and accepted use, but when you are going to distinguish a democracy from a republic you have to EXCLUDE extra republic definition listed under democracy.

look at the dictionary definitions:

Democracy:
1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

Republic:
2. A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them.

The difference is who "exercises the power". The United States is a republic. We elect Representitives and Senators to exercise lawmaking powers. Hell, we don't even elect the president as a democracy. You think you get to vote for the president? Nope. There are only 538 people who get to vote who becomes president. They are called the called the electorial college. When you thought you voted for president you really elected someone to the electorial college who promised to vote for the person you wanted. That's why we've had a few presidents elected with less than 50% of the public's vote. The public does not directly elect the president.

Go get an education before talking about "people like you walk around making some absurd definition".

-

Re:Republic vs. Democracy

[2short]

"In a democracy, once people realize that they can abolish all taxes and/or grant themselves entitlements, the government collapses quickly."

Nice theory, but in reality many towns in New England have been run by pure Democracy for more than a hundred years now, and collapse does not appear to be on the horizon. See, you go to town meeting, and you have to pass a budget. Nobody "realizes they can abolish all taxes and/or grant themselves entitlements". Sure, there's that one guy who proposes abolishing taxes every time, but we just tell him he's an idiot. This year he couldn't get a second, so we didn't even have to waste the ususal couple minutes voting him down.

Re:Republic vs. Democracy

[Unordained]

not sure you could call it a full-time job: my girlfriend worked as a page at the state-level (not national, sadly) and can say that most of these people, besides getting a large hunk of the year off to go campaign for themselves, also barely read the bill ahead of time, wait for the bell, walk in, press a button, and leave. they've already decided ahead of time what they're voting for, they don't come "early" for the discussion.

now, let's try to contrast that with millions of americans. i can't. most of them would look at the stuff pending, decide they don't care, and not vote. our representatives can do that. if they do vote, they probably won't take the time to read it. still familiar. if they -do- care, however, they will probably read slashdot (no, not really) and vote the way they want to. and here's the big difference:

i can't vote for a single representative that is exactly what i want. and i have no chance in the world of getting one to vote the way i want him to on every issue. it can't be done: a few hundred people simply cannot represent the diversity of opinion in millions of people. but the people can. no, we're not ready for it yet. maybe we never will be -- but give people a chance, maybe, and see what they do with power in their own hands. it's easy for the industry to lobby a few hundred people -- heck, they can employ at least one person to lobby -each- congresscritter. but they can't do that for all americans -- they'd have to actually suck up to us, which they're not quite doing now (even though we assume a capitalist economy will tend to force the industry to comply with the demands of the populace.)

they don't have time to listen to all of us, they can't vote for all of us. they don't have the expertise in the fields related to the laws they vote on, and they get paid to do their job only a portion of the year ... so the rest of the time, they can convince us they're doing stuff for us. i don't feel represented. do you?

Re:Republic vs. Democracy

[Alsee]

You actually pointed out exactly why the situation would be worse without realizing it.

most of them would look at the stuff pending, decide they don't care, and not vote.

it's easy for the industry to lobby a few hundred people -- heck, they can employ at least one person to lobby -each- congresscritter. but they can't do that for all americans

But they can run misleading commercials to get a few million misinformed people to pass a horrible law. All you need is one sensational newstory about some child getting kidnapped, molested, or killed after using the internet (even if turns out later that the kids babysitter was responsible) and you have a few million hysterical people passing a horrible law.

I don't know how many bills come up for a vote each year, but I'll bet it's several hundred. 200 million people can't pay attentuion to several hundred laws per year in their spare time.

Also remember that only the people who care will bother to vote. As often as not the most interested and motivated people have selfish motivations, and not the good of the public in mind.

While I wish I could vote against the DMCA, I'm glad someone is being paid to deal with the hundreds of bills I've never heard of. Also, only legislators are the only ones who can introduce new bills to be voted on. Could you imagine the hundreds of thousands of pieces of crap that would be submitted if anyone could introduce a bill?

-

Sponsors of DMCA

[xiphosuran]

Although the bill was passed unanimously, the names of eleven sponsors are listed by thomas.loc.gov

The house bill, HR 2281, was sponsored by Howard Coble and had nine cosponsors:

Rep Berman, Howard L. 2/11/1998
Rep Bono, Mary 6/5/1998
Rep Bono, Sonny 9/26/1997
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. 7/29/1997
Rep Frank, Barney 7/29/1997
Rep Hyde, Henry J. 7/29/1997
Rep McCollum, Bill 1/27/1998
Rep Paxon, Bill 6/5/1998
Rep Pickering, Charles 6/22/1998

The senate bill was S. 2037 and was sponsored by Orrin Hatch.

Bill summaries can be found at:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR0 22 81:|TOM:/bss/d105query.html|

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:S.2 03 7:

Re:US Citizen? You're basically fucked (as I am)..

[entrigant]

Slashdot needs a "Depressing yet true" moderation catagory.

RedHat dissappointment

[DigitalLogic]

I think RedHat is causing unnecessary contention. I don't understand why a company that is trying so hard to seem valid, would put such a statement out. For someone in their position, such a risk is great. My perspective of them has dropped many notches. As for most of the other comments here, they are just plain US bashing. We are happy here in the US and we are free and have access to more information than we know what to do with. We have access to our represenatives and we can vote. I thought this was to have good Science and Technical discussion, but instead, it has been for the most part, just flamming the US and their supportors.

Re:RedHat dissappointment

[Vortran]

It's not "the US" per se, but rather certain acts of the US government. I do not voluntarily support many of the US government's actions taken in the name of its citizens with their money. Our freedom and form of government are excellent compared to others. That doesn't mean our governement can't suck. It just sucks a lot less than most others.

Do you support the DMCA? Supporting the US does not mean supporting the DMCA or the US government. To me, "supporting the US" means support the US citizens... the people like myself who get out of bed every day and go to work and look forward to coming home and playing with or networks and children (and wives!) and relaxing on the weekends. Just like the folks in other countries.

Vortran out

Re:RedHat dissappointment

[Xepherys2]

Red Hat is not causing the contention. The document in question was written by another party, and was COPYRIGHTED, and therefore, Red Hat cannot use their document without going through the license which it was bound by... which is the sites license and which prevents US citizens and protected from viewing it. The people who went that route made the decision, and the general concensus is that they did so for the PURPOSE of making the DMCA look ridiculous. Bravo to them!

Many people, even among the techno-elite still don't see too many problems with the DMCA. But if things like this continue, perhaps more support will rally behind anti-DMCA groups. It's a pathetic piece of legislature that has no place in a "free" (as in speech) society. Hopefully it won't be around long... *sigh*

-Xeph

Re:RedHat dissappointment

[DigitalLogic]

No, I don't support the DMCA. :-) I think the old laws served their purpose. I don't think people should take things that are not theirs, it's stealing otherwise and there are laws already in place for that. If you bought it, you have the right to copy, edit, mix, or whatever.

Re:RedHat dissappointment

[ccgr]

Amen to that, I agree totally.

Re:One day...

[crazyphilman]

You're missing something.

Our vote, remember, means nothing.

We didn't vote George W into office -- he snatched the presidency from Gore with the help of his buddies down in Florida. And, look what he's doing to the nation. Before Bush, we had a balanced budget, a strong economy, we were at peace with the world, and most people didn't hate us. NOW, we have the return of Reagan-ish deficit spending thanks to unnecessary tax cuts which, incidentally, primarily help the rich (remember "Voodoo economics"? Reaganomics?). We have a huge amount of saber rattling going on. Companies are getting away with just about everything they ever dreamed of (just how many Enron execs are actually going to be punished? How many are going to even stop being rich?). and everyone around the world hates us.

Yeah, I'm REAL OPTIMISTIC that those elections are going to CHANGE THINGS! Oh, SURE. And, the rest of the world is so mean spirited that they blame individual Americans for things that aren't their fault -- in part because of people like you, who believe that their vote actually counts (I'm not saying you're a bad person, but rather that your optimism gives others an excuse to blame individuals for the actions of their government). So, Euro types tell each other, "But, the Americans can vote against this type of thing, so it's really their fault!" And, now, we can't even move away, because everyone wherever we go will blame us individually for everything that is going on, and no matter where we go we'll be hated. We're the gypsies of the new millenium (except, of course, that people generally find gypsies somewhat interesting).

As an aside, by the way, this isn't very nice of Europe in particular. Especially after we've almost literally saved the free world in two major wars, rebuilt even our enemies' entire infrastructures after both of those wars, accepted millions of refugees and foreigners with open arms, given them an education and a new life... But then, they say no good deed goes unpunished.

Vote? Fuck it, I've got less important things to do.

Fuck It

[panck]

...someone host in on a US server and clearly display that under the DMCA the following is illegal. Then say "Fuck you assholes, here it is. Come get me" Take a stand and fight this shit biscuit.

Huh, wha, me? you want me to do it? I would but i don't want to have my server shut down :) I mean, someone with balls. They should do it.

Re:This is just FUD. No, necessary evil.

[Havokmon]

US courts of law-- as opposed to what you see on the evening news-- are very much concerned with simple facts. Attorneys appeal to emotion; that's part of their job, to persuade the jury. But when all is said and done, the decision is based on the facts of the case.

I surely hope you are right. But that actually brings up an incident I'm familar with. My brother-in-law was convicted of rape. He was a HS Senior, and the two girls were freshman. Now, treating 18yr olds and 15 yr olds equally in school is a problem in and of itself - but I digress. I can't tell you if it was forced (DURING School, in the theater), but I do know of the inconsistancies between the attornies. For example, the girls said he held a knife to them. When searches took place, no specific knife was found, and it was agree that as part of his plea (the moron admitted to having sex with them - he's not too bright, just being 18 screwed him) that no information about a knife would be used in court. The DA presented evidence that 'A knife like this (shows LONG bladed knife) was found during the search'. Yet no knife was found (other than what's in the kitchen) that had anything to do with the case.

Sorry, they're all scammers. Like the chick who claimed Mark Chmura raped her. Did you watch that on Court TV? That was hilarious.

It's amazing what an accusation and a DA looking for an appointment can do to you.

We need civil disobedience!

[Anonymous Coward]

So once again, we've just a hyped up big-imaginary-gag-in-the-sky preventing us from developing Linux (or maybe we just forgot to take our meds :-). How will Linux survive now, we wonder?

Step one oughta be a little civil disobedience, don't you think? Rolling over and playing dead just doesn't make much of a statement, especially when the specific example here is such a weak one. Why not go about out business while loudly proclaiming, LOOK AT US -- WE HAVE TO BREAK THIS STUPID LAW JUST TO DEVELOP LINUX.

Of course, I'm a loooooooong time Linux developer, and you don't see me attaching my name to this, so if might be harder to find martyrs than other kinds of open-source volunteers.

Re:We need civil disobedience!

[P0lyh34)]

People are just too scared of our gov to even attempt it, which is sick and sad. Its like a day in jail would ruin their entire life or something.

RTFDMCA

[bobdotorg]

I can see the future of Slashdot:

poster1: blah blah blah blah blah blah

poster2: RTFA!

poster1: F you! I would have RTFA, but hey, I'm an American. RTFDMCA.

Distributing the binary violates the DMCA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone mentioned that distributing the source code for the patch equates to describing the security flaw. As I see it this is correct (makes for some interesting GPL conflicts).

Now push this reasoning out to the next logical step...

Let's not forget that a binary is just a set of instructions, like source code. There are certainly people out there that can read various binaries (via a hex-dump, etc.). Even more disturbing is the fact that you can decompile the code into C (or other language of your choosing).

By this argument, you can not distribute the patch, in any form (source or compiled), in the USA.

The only difference between distributing a text file, source code, and a compiled binary is a matter of syntax and/or grammar. Since, the DMCA doesn't discriminate between languages, even binaries should be subject to its restricitons.

Hmm... isn't a decompiler a violation of the DMCA? By the same logic, isn't a compiler also a violation? What about an interpreters too?

text of the 2.4.19 security patches

[Anonymous Coward]

- If the Stradis driver is loaded (hardware must be present) a
maths overflow allowed the user to scribble into kernel memory

- It was possible to feed the SE401 USB hardware driver signed
values and fool kernel checks. This requires the hardware is
present

- The usbvideo driver could be fooled due to a maths overflow corner
case. This requires drivers to be present

- The /proc/slabinfo file could exceed a buffer size and cause
corruption of the kernel. This is really beyond user control but
if it occurs then the user can trigger the corruption

- By setting the TF flag a carefully constructed binary could hang
the kernel dead

- By misusing the rlimit resource limits it was possible to avoid
acct data being written on your process exit

- The joystick driver had erroneous copies in obscure ioctl cases
that could be used to patch the kernel as any user. Hardware
must be present and the module loaded for this vulnerability
to occur

- Multiple errors in the vm86 handling allowed users to force an
"Oops" from the kernel and in some cases to corrupt kernel data.
An additional small fix is needed for 2.4.19 but not 2.4.19-ac
(see bottom)

- The rt_cache_proc file could be tricked into returning chunks of
kernel data.

- On a system with over 1Gb of RAM the loop driver could in some
cases fail and expose kernel data. This is not under user control.
On 2.4.19 the loop driver works fine with large memory systems.

- Multiple /proc files could be persuaded to dump kernel data
due to a sanity checking bug in the proc file handlers

- The XMM SSE registers were not always cleared for new processes
and could expose data from a different task. While it was not
possible to modify another tasks registers there is a small risk
because some cryptographic systems have XMM acceleration functions

W

Re:Then almost all security notices violate the DM

[SiliconEntity]

But if that is really taken as a violation of the DMCA, then almost all public notices of security issues may be illegal, even if the author did not write an exploit, and indeed even if no exploit is known to exist. The entire CERT site is at risk. Bruce Schneier may be one of the rampant criminals on Earth.

You're right, these conclusions follow logically from the claim that this kernel changelog violates the DMCA. It's quite clear in fact that it does not; see my earlier post.

Notice that no one here or in the referenced articles and links actually quotes the DMCA to show which provision would be violated by publishing this information! Doesn't that make you suspicious?

It's sad that so many people here are willing to suspend critical thinking when presented with a claim that fits into their preconceptions.

Re:One day...

[ekent82]

So, when the election comes around in the near future, DON'T VOTE FOR ANYBODY CURRENTLY IN THE CONGRESS!! This is a completely over simplified, reactionary method. What you need to do is educate yourself and elect representatives which are not members of the "good ole boys" club like Bush, Gore, Lieberman, and most Washington politicans are. Every state has their own voter's guide. I'm sure most if not all are online. Do yourself a favor and read it.

Think for yourself

[SiliconEntity]

No one here or in the referenced links has backed up the claim that DMCA would apply to publishing these kernel patches, using quotes from the DMCA itself. Why do you suppose this is?

And more importantly, why are so many people willing to accept these claims without any proof or even any evidence?

Readers need to think for themselves, and not just accept what people tell them. It's all too easy to swallow unsupported claims which fit into our preconceptions. But in fact those are the ones for which it is most important to check the facts, simply because they are the ones where we are most likely to make mistakes.

See my earlier post for evidence that the DMCA does not apply to publishing kernel source. I quote from the text of the DMCA itself, and link back to the rest of it.

Shouldn't a position that has evidence behind it be more believable than one which is offered without any backing at all? Pay attention to your own thought processes as you consider the new information I am presenting here. Think about whether you are being objective and open to new ideas, even when they contradict your prejudices.

Thinking for yourself is hard work, harder than letting other people think for you. But if you can get yourself to do it, eventually you'll find that it's a hard habit to break.

Libertarians

[neurostar]

We need a website that shows all the people that voted yes for the DMCA.

Actually you don't necessarily...

Just vote Libertarian

neurostar

Wrong

[commodoresloat]

They did not legally purchase this right from Congress. They only purchased a license to use this right. Congress may revoke or revise this license at its discretion, perhaps with the upgrade to Congress v. 2004.

Re:Wrong

[sbillard]

Oh please.... Congress v. 2004 is just going to be another room full of stuffed shirts. Some members the same, some new. In the end, nothing changes. The DMCA was bought and paid for by big biz. The gov is 0wn3d by big biz. And so are you.

I think it is cute the way some people get all fired up for their canidates. As if their lives will change in any significant way if the "other" guy happens to win the election.

Our elected officials are puppets, figureheads that give the general population a sense of choice or "say". It is the "system" that is firmly in charge. And that "system" is for sale.

Hey Alan: TAKE YOUR MEDS

[Anonymous Coward]

And duck. The black helicopters are circling low again.

Bye-bye Red Hat..

[pair-a-noyd]

If Red Hat is going to cave in to the DMCA goonsquad Stasi then I will not be using RH anymore.

Linux is about freedom. Freedom to choose.
And I choose to use a different distro.
Let the DMCA Stasi hitsquad come kick my door down with ski-masks and machine guns because I watch LOTR on my Linux box or I have 1,000's of MP3's (currently converting them to that other format).

Let us all become MP3/DVD Martyr's.
What next? Will the DMCA goonsquads begin dropping 2,000lb LGB's on our homes because we read information that they have deem as verbotten???

Where will this stop? Is there a limit on this or will it be taken to the point that to listen to a song you have to provide biometric fingerprints to your government approved walkman??

I see it now, like in the Soviet Union, copy machines and typewriters had to be licensed. Get caught with an unregistered typewritter and get a bullet in the head.

It's only a matter of time..

Its simple really

[AtomicX]

"You are not allowed to download information on the patch if you are not a US citizen"

[Hackers worldwide suddenly succumb to a nasty bout of amnesia]

who cares?

[alonsoac]

kernel patch that cannot be explained to U.S. citizens

Who cares? They wouldn't get it anyway...

It's funny laugh!

There is only ONE solution...

[MasteroftheVoxel]

Kernel patch submissions from Alan Cox should no
longer be accepted. It's apparent that he is not
just doing this because he hates the DMCA, but that he is trying to give Americans a hard time in general.

Any idiot will understand that the DMCA has nothing to do with circumstances like this kernel patch. Any lawyer can explain to you exactly why. I'm not going to quote from the law, because frankly, no one on
Slashdot is capable of interpreting the legal terminology.
That is what lawyers (unfortunately) are for. If you really want to understand the DMCA, consult a LAWYER (they are a necessary evil in the US).
Words such as "effective", "reasonable", "primary" all have special meanings when it comes to legal documents.

Basically, there are no copyrighted works involved here. And the kernel patch is not primarily written to circumvent some type of digital rights management. The point is, yes, occasionally crazy issues end up in the courts - you can sue pretty much anybody for *anything*. (Hey, my C compile lets me write code to circumvent CCS, my hammer allows me access to the local library to steal books, etc. Thats not the DMCA though) Fortunately for us, the crazy cases don't usually go very far in the court system. Yes, it was surprising about what happened with Adobe and the Russian guy (what was his name?), but that was a much different issue - where the notions of copyright and copy protection where VERY clear there.

Do you think Alan Cox consulted his lawyer before submitting his kernel patch under such an absurd copyright? I doubt it.

So, the end result simply becomes that Alan Cox is beign stubborn. We don't like the DMCA, but he really isn't at risk from it because of a kernel patch. Let's not support this kind of insanity anymore. Sure, continue to fight the DMCA, but let's also make our voices in the Linux community heard, and make it clear that we don't want to deal with whiny, stubborn idealists who are always trying to push a political agenda. It distracts from what we (and Linus) are trying to do with Linux and OSS (for some at least)

There's another saying in Canada...

[kentyman]

Eh?

Re:There's another saying in Canada...

[Blkdeath]

Still better than "Huh?", eh?

Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

As a programmer and member of the United States/New World Order, I'm appaled. This is ridiculous. I won't view that website ATM. I think I'll wait until I move to another country. Maybe a lot of us Slashdot nerds should move to some country where freedom actually means something. Then we can let the American idiots that remain blow themselves up, and sodomize each other with laws.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Bad Moderator, No Biscuit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not one to gripe about moderation usually, nor am I one to support the Libertarian party normally, but... WHAT. THE. FUCK.

How is anything he said Flamebait? Voting 3rd party will guarantee voting against someone who voted for the DMCA. Voting Liberatarian will also be very likely to vote in someone who is against protectionist legislation like the DMCA. I hope this one gets nailed in meta-moderation. It's sick to see someone abuse moderation points for their own politics.

Re:Bad Moderator, No Biscuit.

[SquadBoy]

Thank you very much. That is exactly right if we educate everyone we know about this and then vote for a party that has stated that they are against this it will send a clear message to the people who are in power that doing this will lose them votes. This was in *no* way flamebait but rather a serious suggestion. Well ok the straight ticket part was a bit of a joke but the idea of voting Libetarian in any race in which someone may have voted for the DMCA is deadly serious.

US Congress is Ghetto

[espionage_7]

We have a BS law for everything and if you haven't sued someone in the paste weed you are outdated like a 486 Packard Bell. Congress is just a bunch of cheap whores making dumb ass laws and flaunting there ghetto booze around.

Re:US Congress is Ghetto

[espionage_7]

"Paste Weed" WTH it was supposed to be past week.

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting is the only useful form of complaining you can afford. Others have options.

..or Green Party

[Valdrax]

The Green Party is also a good choice for a party that is against corporate welfare legislation. That's pretty much the core focus of their party platform, though it's more oriented towards enviromental concerns.

those comments are illegal citizen!

[Quixadhal]

If a security document describing flaws in the kernel is a violation of the DMCA, than surely any coments in the source code of any Open Source product are also in violation (I guess that means my code is safe! *grin*)!

Further, since the DMCA doesn't specify that the language must be English, the source code itself might well be in violation. Say goodbye to utilities like crack (and thus cracklib), or port-scanners. In fact, you might choose to view the contents of a protected file with /bin/cat... HA! It's now a tool to circumvent copy protection, don't let it run with root privs! And don't forget to change chmod so it can't clear bits... the DMCA doesn't specify that *YOU* may circumvent your own protection!!!

Hmmmm, now what big organization hates open-source, and would benefit the most from having it declared illegal.... what giant mega-corp would be happy to have security notifications disallowed.... hmmmmm....

Cox

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Alan Cox have a similar issue on an old patch for exactly the same reasons?

According to Alan Cox, yes. According to the written letter of the law, which I have actually bothered to read, the DMCA only restricts circumvention DEVICES . A simple description of the effects of a programming mistake is not the same thing as a technological system for exploiting the bug, and is therefore not covered by the DMCA.

Moreover, even if we make the gigantic leap that a prose descrption is a circumvention device, the DMCA only restricts devices that have NO COMMERCIALLY-SIGNIFICANT NON-INFRINGING USES . Because the "device" clearly has countless legitimate commercial uses in protecting information systems, it would still not violate the DMCA.

The alleged parallels to the Sklyarov case are completely erroneous. Sklyarov and his employer were selling systems to crack content protection. You handed Sklyarov a wad of money, he handed you a content extractor. Comparing this to an essay that merely states that a programming mistake occurred is ludicrous. (Incidentally, given the propensity of clueless corporate drones to accidentally lock up their content and delete the originals, the Sklyarov systems do have commercially significant purpose, and were likely non-infringing. Caveat: as long as Sklyarov and friends didn't advertise them as useful for violating copyright.)

Alan Cox and his useful-idiot friends at Red Hat need to actually try reading the fucking law. It emphatically does not mean what most people are assuming it means. This sort of political grandstanding is destructive and draws attention away from the real problems with the DMCA:

1. Law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors don't understand the law either, and don't care that they don't understand. E.g., many elements of Sklyarov's prosecution were contrary to the law. (The only legitimate point would have been if he was advertising it specifically for use in violationing conventional copyright law.)
2. The gov't is arresting people based on complaints from content management companies. However, the DMCA only creates a legal cause for action for copyright holders whose works have actually been infringed. Read the actual law: everything is about copyright holders. Content control systems are only mentioned with regard to how they affect copyright holders. This puts the DVDCCA and Adobe out in the cold (where they belong). Yet where do the federal prosecutors run for violations but straight to the infrastructure companies!
3. The DMCA defines everything with respect to "the authority of the copyright holder". Yet when I buy a licensed copy of a movie, am I not allowed to watch it by the authority of the copyright holder? As far as I can tell, the DMCA doesn't provide that the copyright holder dictate a particular type of machine be used to view their work, only that machines intended for violation can be keep out of commerce.
4. And if by a leap of judicial interpretation, coyright holders can dictate particular machines, then the DMCA effective grants them monopoly control over access in perpetuity. Suppose I have a movie on DVD and its copyright expires in a few years. According to that (popular) interpretation, it will still be illegal for me to defeat the access controls and copy the movie. That's unconstitutional, ergo that interpretation is wrong. Yet that is the common interpretation, and stories like this one serve only to enhance and popularize that misinterpretation.

Incidentally, I have a support contract with Red Hat, which they are breaching due to this erroneous misinterpretation of the law. Their lawyers will be hearing from me if they don't get their act together.

Re:Cox

[Anonymous Coward]

the DMCA only restricts devices that have NO COMMERCIALLY-SIGNIFICANT NON-INFRINGING USES. Because the "device" clearly has countless legitimate commercial uses in protecting information systems, it would still not violate the DMCA.

Microsoft has said time and time again that Linux has no commercially significant uses. Therefore, Cox's patch does not, either.

Re:Cox

[Gordonjcp]

Microsoft has said time and time again that Linux has no commercially significant uses. Therefore, Cox's patch does not, either.
That's a good point, actually. Since Microsoft more-or-less has the US Government in its pocket, who are they going to listen to first? Kernel hackers (who as I'm sure we all know are commie hippy dirty terrorists who want to destroy democracy and ruin the internet for its rightful purpose, advertising Time-Warner), or Microsoft, keeper of all that is good and right in software (hey, they've been around for 26 years, they must be good. Oh, and what a nice clean-cut young man that Bill Gates seems...)

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing like double penetration....

Re:US Citizen? You're basically fucked (as I am)..

[peter]

> Result: You're surrounded by people who despise George W. Bush and see you as their personal GWBush voodoo doll. So they harangue and harass you about every screwed up thing the U.S. does as if you personally ordered it.

That's not even close to true. In any place you might actually want to move to, most of the people are reasonable enough to know that most Americans don't like the things their gov't is up to. There's a big difference between disagreeing with what your gov't does, and hating Americans in general.

Someone who left the US as a refugee from the DMCA would be very unlikely to be shunned because they grew up in the US. Anyone who leaves once they figure out how bad it is must not be the kind of person that keeps electing people who pull shit like Bush does.

It's fairly well known how difficult it is to get a clue from the US news media, which is why most people don't blame the US public for what their gov't does. Democracy is broken, so it's not the people's fault.

There are some places in the world where people are brainwashed into blind hatred of entire cultures or groups of people. You might encounter the kind of treatment you describe in some places like that. BTW, Canada is not one of those places. Right now, a lot of us hate your gov't. This is separate from the ongoing we're-better-than-the-US sentiment. We like to point to things like gun ownership, and crime involving guns, as reasons why Canada is better. Canada has always had a need to feel superior, probably because we guess that the rest of the world sees us as the US's little brother (or even lap dog). This sentiment does _not_ apply to individual Americans. If you came to Canada (or most E.U. countries, I would imagine), and told people you left the states because of gov't oppression, you would be welcomed with open arms. (You might want to avoid talking about it too much if you support most of the rest of what Bush is up to, since most people outside the states would hope you meant you didn't like everything he's doing, and maybe want to talk about how much Bush's unilateralism sucks. Still, there are people who defend America's war plans, etc., and people don't egg their houses or knock down their mail boxes. Nobody will care that you used to live in the states unless you make a big deal about it. (err, you might want to own a vehicle other than an SUV or pickup truck to avoid the stereotype of the resource-guzzling American.))

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a non-American, I can say fairly easily that there are two levels of resentment towards Americans. The first is towards the government, which is composed of such arrogant pricks it's not even remotely funny(looking at their behaviour towards it's allies, or any one of the many political faux pas(spelling?) they've committed, it's obvious that something is wrong), and the second is towards a very specific segment of the population, who seem to be aggressively ignorant of the outside world. Sometimes the latter is composed of incorrect facts shoved into our faces(the second world war against Germany was, for the most part, fought by European countries and Canada. The United States sent some troops, but they certainly did *NOT* singlehandedly save the war in WWII. The fight against Japan was entirely seperate from the trunk of the conflict. The first world war is one in which the US was a late comer, where the british forces(and their allies) were in a dead tie with the Germans(and their allies). When the US decided to join the First world war, it tipped the scales of war in the allies' favour. Thus, the Americans played a large part in the victory of World War I. American History tends to overstate the American role in the defeat of the germans.), or honest mistakes, which are usually laughed off by most people(though some Americans don't seem to like this). Arrogance overall is a distinct problem many people find when dealing with Americans(though I generally don't have to deal with them every day, so I cannot really vouch for this). Arrogance and ignorance can really set some people off though, and though I suspect some things may just be cultural differences in the ways people relate to one another, and there are undoubtedly many in the States which don't fit this stereotype, enough fit the description abroad to enforce it. The fact that many countries get American television only adds to the matter, as American Television is among the most jingoistic I've seen, which enforces an already existing image problem.

There is a real problem of US culture displacing a native culture, but generally that is a problem which must be confronted on a local level, so there's no sense in trying to blame the media machine for doing it's job.

On the topic of the political system, I've long pondered this, and I realize that this is the *EXACT* reason that the federal government was designed to be so minimial in the original design of the US. By placing the power in the hands of single states, politics can be divided into someting far easier to grasp and get into(it's far easier to convince a couple million people to vote for you in a state election than a couple hundred million people in a federal election). This allows for seperate states to have seperate policies as the people see fit(as a bad example, people in outer states tended to vote for Gore in the last election, and people in inner states tended to vote for Bush, so a clear dichotomy within the nation exists -- the very reason state politics were emphasized in ther original design.

guns

[xa0s]

do you really think you stand a chance in HELL of overthrowing the worlds most powerful military machine with your dinky little semi-automatic rifle (last i checked, automatic weapons were still illegal in the U.S.)?.. even if you had a thousand.. a million... theyd still squash you like the anti-government militia that you are to them.. fact is guns are used MORE for illegitimate purposes that legit... just look at all the countries with strict gun laws (esp. pistols being illegal like here in Canada).. the amount of violent crimes being committed in those countries are significantly lower than in the U.S... show me a legitimate use for selling military grade weapons to the public, and ill show you a crazy serial killer going around murdering people randomly.. anyone remember something about a sniper on CNN? the idea of having the right to bear arms is just a silly outdated excuse for gun nuts to satisfy their fetish.... i'll admit it, holding a hand gun makes you feel powerful.. its like a drug... but not a necessary one and maybe thats not even such a bad thing, but dont be a hypocrite... if you allow something with mostly horrendous uses, and few legit, why not allow them all? the answer is money.. theres a shitload of money in making and selling arms, and the powers that be in the U.S. are heavily backed by certain lobbies and thus will make sure that there are always guns around to be guns sold.. and tobacco.. and alcohol... and fossil fuels... but no drugs, because drugs are the spawn of satan, and they cant tax those... theyll convince you its in your best interest to support guns because of the 2nd amendment, and your right to defend yourself against criminals... fortunately, for the criminals, but unfortunately, for you, they too can defend themselves when they break into your house... i love the idea of a free world... but there is absolutely no legitimate use for any civilian to own a gun..

Re:guns

[charon_on_acheron]

Well if bleeding heart idiots like you would stop trying to take away the guns from decent law-abiding citizens, there would be plenty of people who would be able to overthrow the meglomaniac government we are slowly getting.

Also, several women have guns in their purse so they can shoot an attacker. So you think they should instead be vulnerable to every rapist.

As for the violent crimes in the US, it would be there with or without legal guns. Criminals don't particulary care to use 'legal' guns anyway, they use 'illegal' guns since, hey, they're criminals. The problem in the US is so many people don't have any integrity anymore, and think that killing for a pair of Nikes is OK. But it's not their fault, it's because their mother used to spank them with a wooden spoon, that's why they are murderers now.

As for a legitimate use for selling military grade weapons to the public, how else to fight off the "worlds most powerful military machine "? Your arguments contradict themselves.

And long before the sniper started, there was Jack the Ripper, The Boston Strangler, The Zodiac Killer, Charles Manson and company, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, etc. How many people did they kill?

By the way, check out the statistics of violence in states that have specifically made gun-friendly laws, such as concealed-carry and the Make My Day laws. Crime drops, because the criminals know there is a chance, just a chance, of being shot to death while robbing, raping, burglarizing, etc.

As far as drugs, you are right. The main reason drugs are still illegal is because the government can't tax them efficiently. If marijuana could be taxed like tobacco, the US would legalize it immediately just for the money. Unfortunately, everyone can grow marijuana in their backyard or hall closet, anywhere in the country, so taxing it is difficult. Tobacco isn't so easy to grow. Now if drugs were not illegal, most of the crime would also drop because so much of it is involved in the drug trade. No one kills people over alcohol or tobacco shipments. Alcoholics don't break into houses for booze money. Smokers don't prostitute themselves to the masses for a cig.

And to finish it off: If you are so worried about guns, which are used to kill thousands of people yearly, what about cars which also kill thousands of people yearly? I have been involved in a few accidents myself, as I am not the most careful driver. However, I have never shot a gun at someone. Which piece of metal would you rather trust me with?

No! Read the DMCA!

[Tom7]

If it was presented to a judge that Mr. Joe Nobody wrote a changelog entry defining file xyzzy.c that has hole 'a' in it which causes this issue... and Mr. Jack Cracka makes a program based on that info, and Master Script Kiddie then uses that program to take down a server for some company, it could be construed that Mr. Nobody's original document allowed for circumvention of system security and therefore was in violation of the DMCA. See?

No, I don't see. You should really read the DMCA (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html)! It doesn't outlaw hacking, or taking down servers (computer crime laws do, though) nor does it outlaw providing information to someone about how to hack. The only thing it outlaws is circumvention of protection measures that control access to a copyrighted work, and the trafficking in devices primarily designed for such circumvention. Read the definition of technological measure, circumvention, and circumvention device in 17 USC 1201, and then tell me how taking down someone's server could possibly be such a violation. Even if by some stretch you can fit that into the law, certainly it is even more of a stretch to imagine that the changelog is a "device" that is "primarily designed" for circumvention.

Without proper understanding ... a trial can go to hell quickly, without proper cause.

Yes, indeed!

But mistrials aside, I don't see how this issue could ever be a realistic DMCA case.

Re:No! Read the DMCA!

[Xepherys2]

Perhaps you don't live within the US? Are you not familiar with how technology trials have gone in the past? I'm not speaking of mistrials, I'm talking about trials that end with bad results due to the misinterpretation of a law and/or misunderstanding of technology. A stretch? Sure! But stretches of the law occur daily in the US... *shrug*

Re:No! Read the DMCA!

[Tom7]

Yes, I live in the US. Do you have any examples?
I'm claiming that this scenario would surely require more than just a misunderstanding of technology, but also a serious misunderstanding of the DMCA.

In any case, the fact that technology is misunderstood in the courts is all the more reason to avoid being alarmist and confusing in how we (as people who DO understand technology) portray the DMCA. Do you think it helps anyone's understanding of technology for Cox to be claiming that sercurity holes have something to do technological measures for controlling access to copyrighted works?

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

First, it's lobbyists, second, yes. Your government is corrupted, and it's time for a new one.

bleh

[xa0s]

there exists no quick solution to getting rid of guns, obviously.. but you have to start somewhere.. making the sale of guns and ammo to the public illegal could be a nice starting point... making the public TRULY aware of the horror of guns, instead of supporting them could be another..

the way you're describing guns here really amazes me... as if its your god given right to have the power in your hand to end someones life in an instant... i'd like to think that we've progressed FAR beyond the ass backward colonial american days when carrying arms was perhaps necessary to keep the redcoats at bay...

civilians have no excuse to carry guns..

target shooting? boohoo, so you dont get to practice your m4d sniping skillz.. go play some counter-strike instead

you dont need them to hunt - you go the store instead, or use a bow if you must absolutely kill your own food

you could use them against your government in case they became tyrannical - come on! you think youd stand a chance?

you could use them to defend yourself from criminals - but then they could use them against you too.

collecting guns - again, boohoo so some rich texan doesn't get to display his semi-automatic rifle collection on his wall.

if anything, guns are anything BUT mostly harmless... but people like you, that have this fundamental belief that theyre essential to existance, are the reason why events like columbine, 9/11 and the latest sniper nut killings happen.... dont you think the gains clearly outweigh the losses?

Re:bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

>>dont you think the gains clearly outweigh the losses

I disagree. The ability to shoot you would be a great benefit.

Re:bleh

[YrWrstNtmr]

as if its your god given right to have the power in your hand to end someones life in an instant

As you could with a car. So what? In the hands of a responsible adult, a firearm holds no special danger. You hold in your hands (probably far too often) the equipment to be a serial rapist. Are you one? No. Presumably, you are a responsible adult.

but people like you, that have this fundamental belief that theyre essential to existance, are the reason why events like columbine, 9/11 and the latest sniper nut killings happen.... dont you think the gains clearly outweigh the losses?

The current sniper, is by definition, a criminal. If guns and ammo were outlawed, what makes you think that he would not be able to obtain them anyway? Heroin and crack are illegal, but there seems to be no problem obtaining these, either.

The events of 9/11 had nothing to do with personal firearm ownership.
I don't think guns are an essential part of existence. But, they do hold some definite advantages. Banning personal firearm ownership ensures that only people who are ready and willing to use them for criminal uses will have them. And the rest of us would have no recourse to protect ourselves. None.

When the asshole breaks into your house, and says "Give me the money", you give it to him.
When he says "Give me your car", you toss him the keys.
When he says "Give me your wife", you smile and wave as he carries her out the door, because you cannot stop him.

Would you be willing to put this sign in your front yard ?
"This house is gun free!"

Listen. You cannot put the genie back into the bottle. These things exist. If outlawed, they would exist underground. And be used by criminals. The best thing we can do is grow better humans, who will be less likely to turn into criminals.

Re:bleh

[xa0s]

As you could with a car. So what? In the hands of a responsible adult, a firearm holds no special danger. You hold in your hands (probably far too often) the equipment to be a serial rapist. Are you one? No. Presumably, you are a responsible adult.

A car is meant to drive and my penis is meant for shagging... a gun is meant to kill.. when you hold a gun in your hand, it has only one purpose: to threaten life.

The current sniper, is by definition, a criminal. If guns and ammo were outlawed, what makes you think that he would not be able to obtain them anyway? Heroin and crack are illegal, but there seems to be no problem obtaining these, either.

But do you think he would be able to get his hands on a sniper rifle (a somewhat specialized weapon) through the black market very easily??.. im betting all he did to get his hands on this is the right paperwork and waiting time...

The events of 9/11 had nothing to do with personal firearm ownership.

IIRC the terrorists had personal firearms when they were taking over the planes... where did they get them from??.. perhaps it was at the 'target' store down the street.. perhaps it was some other way.. but ultimately those guns came from the easily available market in the U.S... I will secede though that they could have imported the weapons from home.

When the asshole breaks into your house, and says "Give me the money", you give it to him.
When he says "Give me your car", you toss him the keys.
When he says "Give me your wife", you smile and wave as he carries her out the door, because you cannot stop him.

I'd say that in all these situations you will most likely not even have time to reach for your safely secured and locked firearm in your bedside drawer.. if hes got a gun trained on you, he's not going to give you the time to pull yours out

Ultimately though, you're right about having let the genie out of the bottle.... people always have the power to take a life in their hands and extinguish it...i think putting a gun in that hand makes it a lot easier to decide whether to excercise that power or not. but we will never eliminate the need for guns until humans evolve beyond them

Re:bleh

[YrWrstNtmr]

IIRC the terrorists had personal firearms when they were taking over the planes... where did they get them from??.. perhaps it was at the 'target' store down the street.. perhaps it was some other way.. but ultimately those guns came from the easily available market in the U.S... I will secede though that they could have imported the weapons from home.

errr, no. They merely had boxcutters and shortblade knives. All perfectly legal (at that time) on aircraft.
To maximise the possibilty of mission completion, bringing illegal weapons on board was not a good idea. Some may have been found out when boarding, thus compromising their mission. They also played on the prevalent thought processes of the aircrew. Pre-9/11, the way to stay alive during a hijack was to cooperate until you could land. That has changed.

I'd say that in all these situations you will most likely not even have time to reach for your safely secured and locked firearm in your bedside drawer.. if hes got a gun trained on you, he's not going to give you the time to pull yours out.

No, the idea is that he does not know whether or not a weapon is in any given house. Remove firearms from law abiding citizens, and then he can attack any house with impunity, because he will have a firearm, and knows that you do not.

Firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens pose no threat.
Criminals will have firearms, no matter what the law says.
Which do you prefer? The possibility of protecting yourself, or simply giving up?

Re:bleh

[Dragoness Eclectic]

there exists no quick solution to getting rid of guns, obviously..

Good. Then we can hang on to our guns during the phases when nutcases like you get in office and make laws.

but you have to start somewhere..

No, you don't.

making the sale of guns and ammo to the public illegal could be a nice starting point...

That would be a very bad starting point into tyranny and oppression. Fortunately it is unconstitutional in the U.S.

making the public TRULY aware of the horror of guns, instead of supporting them could be another..

Are you always that easily scared by inanimate pieces of metal?

the way you're describing guns here really amazes me... as if its your god given right to have the power in your hand to end someones life in an instant...

Well, actually it is. Self-defense is considered one of the self-evident human rights, and for people who were too foolish to figure it out, the guys who wrote the U.S. Constitution wrote it out explicitly in the 2nd Amendment.

i'd like to think that we've progressed FAR beyond the ass backward colonial american days when carrying arms was perhaps necessary to keep the redcoats at bay...

Unfortunately, we've regressed far from the enlightened early post-Revolution days when everyone understood the importance of freedom of speech, religion, association, the importance of limiting government power, and the overriding importance of keeping the means to "calibrate" governments that turn tyrannical-- arms in the hands of free men and women.

Unfortunately we haven't progressed beyond the need for self-defense, either. Perhaps you have; I'm curious to know what crime-free utopia you live in.

civilians have no excuse to carry guns..

Fortunately we don't need excuses. We have a Right to Bear Arms. I don't have to explain to you or the government why I choose to carry a gun, and that's the way it should be.

target shooting? boohoo, so you dont get to practice your m4d sniping skillz.. go play some counter-strike instead

You do that. I'll target-shoot to keep my gun skills sharp. Untrained fools with loaded guns are dangerous.

you dont need them to hunt - you go the store instead, or use a bow if you must absolutely kill your own food

You do that. I'll bag deer with a .30-06 if I feel like it--in season, of course.

you could use them against your government in case they became tyrannical - come on! you think youd stand a chance?

Yes, as long as none of my compatriots were like you. The government doesn't even consider doing a lot of crap because pissing off 200 million people with guns is a Very Bad Idea. I'd explain in detail, but your mind is already made up and I don't feel like bothering with the long side-argument that will entail.

you could use them to defend yourself from criminals - but then they could use them against you too.

Only if you hand them to the criminal first. Usually it's recommended that you shoot the bastard instead.

Sorry, I know you have to weasel out from under saying "you should just bend over and take it from criminals, because you have no right to defend yourself from predators"; even you think that sounds bad.

collecting guns - again, boohoo so some rich texan doesn't get to display his semi-automatic rifle collection on his wall.

So, whose collection are you jealous of? I can't think of anything else that inspired this comment.

if anything, guns are anything BUT mostly harmless...

I should hope not! If I use a gun, I want it to seriously harm what I'm shooting at!

but people like you, that have this fundamental belief that theyre essential to existance,

No, I just believe that guns are instruments of a basic, self-evident, inalienable human right: the right of self-defense.

are the reason why events like columbine, 9/11 and the latest sniper nut killings happen.... ...and a non sequitur follows. Because I believe people have a right to defend themselves, a bunch of fanatics fly a plane into a building? Gosh, I didn't know I had that much influence on world events!

dont you think the gains clearly outweigh the losses?

Yes, I think the gains of retaining the Right to Keep and Bear Arms clearly outway the losses.

Re:bleh

[xa0s]

ugh.. youre an idiot..

normally i have a pretty open mind towards people, but we obviously differ on a very fundamental level and theres no point in continuing this..

Re:bleh

[Dragoness Eclectic]

normally i have a pretty open mind towards people, but we obviously differ on a very fundamental level and theres no point in continuing this..

In that, we are agreed.

Love those europeans!

[Anonymous Coward]

When they're not busy shitting on each other (literally in german-porn) they're too busy looking the other way (think: Bosnia, Kosovo) to take care of business.

Why is it EuroAsses always play both sides of the fence? Especially germany; all we hear is "why doesn't the US come fix Bosnia / Kosovo?" Ten minutes later, they say "How come the US thinks they're the world police force?"

BECAUSE YOU DON'T CLEAN UP YOUR OWN DAMN BACKYARD!

Disclaimer: Not all europeans are EuroAsses(tm), just the whiny do-nothing / america is bad ones.

I broke THE WRONG LAW

[PzyCrow]

I LIVE IN THE US: Salt Lake City, Utah. Come get me. Muwahahaha!

Re:This is just FUD. No, necessary evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Attorneys appeal to emotion; that's part of their job, to persuade the jury

the decision is based on the facts of the case.

don't the 2 quotes contradict each other - the jury decides based on how well the attorneys emotionally persuaded them, facts or no facts

Re:This is just FUD. No, necessary evil.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Never been in a courtroom, huh? No, they're not contradictions. Attorneys do appeal to emotion, but the degree to which they're allowed to do so is limited by the law. (The attorneys can't say anything that's "prejudicial," in other words, something that's too emotionally appealing. That sort of thing, if not caught in trial, can result in remanding or even overturning of the case at appeal.) Meanwhile, the jury is continually instructed to ignore the emotional aspects of the case and just focus on the cold facts, except where it's appropriate to consider something like extenuating circumstances or state of mind.

The US judicial system is an adversarial system, which means the courtroom is an arena where the prosecution and defense try to fight it out. It's up to the judge to make sure nobody punches below the belt, but within those limits, the two sides can do anything they like. At the end of the day, the jury makes their decision based on the law and the facts as presented.

That's not it..

[sparkz]

That's AC's 2.4.19 changelog, which has been there for ages - the RedHat advisory is about 2.4.18.

I don't see anything on the site about 2.4.18 at all...

Re:Security holes have NOTHING to do with the DMCA

[ces]

This does actually go beyond Alan Cox making a point, he really does have to worry about releasing patches giving circumvention information in the US.

Consider the following:

Assume Microsoft Palladium has shipped.
Assume a major remote exploit bug/hole allowing one to bypass the "trusted computing environment" is discovered in this new OS.
Assume the steps required to reproduce the bug allow one to bypass the DRM built into the OS.
If you posted either an exploit or a description of the bug you could be charged with violating the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA.

Now assume someone has a "trusted computing" patch for linux that uses digital signatures for security. Remember this can also be used for DRM.
Bug allowing trusted computing subsystem to be bypassed is found.
Someone posts patch for this bug, by it's very nature the patch contains enough information to exploit the hole.
This also would be violating the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.

If you think perhaps this is an overly broad reading of the law and nobody would really ever be prosecuted for violating the DMCA in this way. Remember DAs who have decided a perp is evil and must be guilty of something will find something to nail you on. Usually a law with overly broad language that was aimed at an entirely different problem. Some favorites are RICO, federal wire-fraud statutes, tax evasion, anti-conspiracy statues, computer crime laws, and coming soon to a courtroom near you the DMCA.

Clarifications

[shiflett]

Though your statements are mostly correct, you seem to be missing the point.

It is not the author of the information that needs to use the tool to gain unauthorized access to a copyrighted work. Do you think they had to prove that Dmitry Sklyarov accessed copyrighted information through the use of the tool he helped create? No. Did they prove that 2600 used DeCSS at all? No.

If it is possible that someone else could use the information you publish or the tools you create to gain unauthorized access to a copyrighted work, you are in potential danger of prosecution. Yes, prosecution is not guaranteed, and in this case it seems remote, but why should anyone have to take that risk? These people chose not to take that risk and used the opportunity to point out one absurdity of US law.

The statement that security information cannot be interpreted as a means of circumvention is more than a bit naive. 2600 posted a link to software that someone else had written that someone else could have possibly used to gain unauthorized access to content on a DVD they purchased. They got sued under the DMCA, and it was a strong enough case to win. Describing a security flaw in order to justify the necessity of an associated patch is also nearly identical to the talk Dmitry gave that landed him in prison.

Comparing DeCSS to this situation is tricky. In the DeCSS case, source code was ruled to not be speech. The source code to DeCSS was deemed to be useful for circumventing CSS in order to gain access to a copyrighted work. English descriptions of the code were not useful for circumventing CSS, though they could arguably be used to achieve the same result.

With detailed security information and the associated patch, we can draw a parallel to DeCSS source and the English descriptions, respectively. Though this seems counter-intuitive, this correlation represents the risk that is being avoided in this situation. The patch itself fixes a security vulnerability and is not useful for gaining access to a copyrighted work. So, even though it is code like DeCSS, the primary purpose of each contrast sharply. However, whereas descriptions of DeCSS were much less useful for gaining access to a copyrighted work, descriptions of a security patch are much more useful than the patch itself.

So, for software intended to break security, one could argue that the tool is more useful than descriptions of it to achieve that goal. For software intended to patch security, however, it is quite the opposite. The description of the tool is what can potentially be used to break security, thus this is the piece shielded from American eyes.

Re:One day...

[uncoveror]

Yes, you clearly understand the big lie theory. You are using it now. If you were telling the truth, you would claim your comments, not post as an anonymous coward.

Re:In Massachusetss the new law is null and void.

[emptybody]

Prove it. Lets see the link on state.ma.gov that says so.

Still ok in DRM setting

[Tom7]

First, both of your situations are hypothetical. Neither is actually the case.

Second, we need to talk about "circumvention devices", not circumvention. Of course a description of a bug is not actual circumvention. In fact, it's not a circumvention device either. No court has ever banned a textual description of how to circumvent technological measures, nor (I hope) will they ever. Such descriptions are protected by the constitution, unless they are also simultaneously executable (in the sense of DeCSS source -- too bad). Don't forget, also, that the primary purpose of the "device" must be to circumvent, so a patch that fixes a security hole certainly wouldn't qualify, even if (and I stress if, since usually exploiting a bug is much harder than finding it) the patch contained enough information to develop an exploit.

In the case that we were talking about a bug in DRM technology like Palladium, there might be more to worry about (I contend that a description of what a security patch fixes would obviously be in the clear, nonetheless). However, there's no technological measure involved in this case, no device, no copyrighted material (??) and therefore, no DMCA.

Vote for none of the above

[Nathaniel]

"I believe it passed unopposed. Leaving you three options:

• spoil your vote
• vote for someone other than the incumbent
• don't even show up to vote"

A better option is to show up, vote, and actively obstain if you don't like any candidates for a particular office. There are probably other issues worth voting on any particular ballot, and the total number of votes is relevant (if underreported). As more people actively obstain, it will become easier to demonstrate the need and desire for a binding none-of-the-above option. Increasing voter turnout of people who understand technology would be a Good Thing.

has anyone asked the obvious question

[prestidigital]

Is it a hoax? Every comment I've read here is a reaction under the assumption that the story is accurate and the website actually means something. If it's truly illegal to accept the license just b/c one lives in the U.S., why is it even available to U.S. domains?

Re:One day...

[Christov]

> In a democracy, you are responsible for the actions of those you elect.

Please repeat after me.

The USA is not a democracy.
The USA is not a democracy.
The USA is not a democracy.
The USA is not a democracy.

The USA is a Constitutional Republic operating on democratic principles. A democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

The whole idea of a "checks and balances" system is to prevent the will of 50% plus one from being imposed unjustly on the 50% minus one. This is especially true for the smallest minority group, the individual. The US is supposed to protect individual rights, which are completely counter to a "democracy."

As for your original point of "Get out there and vote." I agree whole-heartedly. The representative system is pretty broken right now, but politicians do pay attention when their jobs are on the line.

Vote, damnit!

It's cheaper than the alternatives...

Again, please read the law!

[Tom7]

You have a misunderstanding of the DMCA and the cases you mention (Sklyarov, DeCSS). In particular, the idea of whether something is "useful" for gaining access to a copyrighted work is irrelevant as far as the DMCA is concerned. The only thing banned is devices primarily designed for circumvention.

The DeCSS code was enjoined because, though it was held that code is indeed speech, it was not PROTECTED speech because it was also a "device" whose primary purpose was to circumvent CSS. I don't agree with this ruling, but that was what happened. It had nothing to do with how "useful" the source code was compared to the english descriptions.

Sklyarov was not indicted for giving a lecture about how eBook "encryption" worked, he was charged with trafficking in a circumvention device for profit. (A criminal offense under the DMCA!)

There is no way that a vague english description of a security flaw in a changelog constitutes a device, much less a device whose primary purpose is to circumvent a technological measure used to protect a copyrighted work. Where's the technological measure? (Read the definition in the DMCA) Where's the copyrighted work? How is a paragraph of english a device??

If we can find a way to educate people about what the DMCA really bans and why DeCSS and Sklyarov's software were found to be illegal, that's great. If we can find a way to be an annoyance to those who bought and use the DMCA, that's ok too. But this stunt is just immature, and only an annoyance to people who already agree with Cox (ie, linux users). In my opinion, all of his posturing is just lowering the level of discussion (and understanding) and will ultimately hurt our cause.

Re:Again, please read the law!

[shiflett]

I have read the law, the depositions, the transscripts of the hearings, Kaplan's ruling, etc.

It seems to me that you should read the ruling, among other things. Try some of the documents listed here:

http://cryptome.org/cryptout.htm#DVD-DeCSS

While you claim to comprehend the letter of the law, you seem to have some misunderstandings about the spirit of the law as interpreted by Kaplan. It is the spirit of the law that creates precedents that are arguably as strong as the law itself. The danger of such precedents is the major factor in the EFF and 2600's decision to drop the appeal.

You seem to be taking an extremely strict interpretation of a rather vague clause in the DMCA. Perhaps if people like Kaplan did the same, it wouldn't have created such a predicament. Your statement, "the idea of whether something is "useful" for gaining access to a copyrighted work is irrelevant as far as the DMCA is concerned," illustrates this. This is not entirely irrelevant to a judge.

Given this testament of your opinion, do you honestly think the MPAA would have had such an easy time against the New York Times, who posted a similar story also containing a link to DeCSS? Of course not. The fact that 2600 is "The Hacker Quarterly" combined with the stigma surrounding the word hacker contributed largely to the success of the MPAA's case. Did you read anything about that in the DMCA? I didn't think so.

The following book is also a good resource for these issues:

http://www.digital-copyright.com/

Finally, pertaining to Sklyarov's case, did you hear about anyone arresting him at the airport? How about in his hotel the night before? Did he just sneak to the conference and not get "caught" until after his speech?

Sure, he was prosecuted for trafficking in a circumvention device. And, I suppose 2600 was prosecuted for illegally copying DVDs, right?

Don't let "the prosecution" confuse you. That's their job. They are going to take the strongest approach to win their case, and it's rarely going to be the truth. This isn't unique to DeCSS cases. While I am not suggesting we all subscribe to conspiracy theories, I don't think it's a good idea to be completely naive either. You seem to disagree.

Re:Again, please read the law!

[Tom7]

I did read the ruling. I have been following these cases closely, partly just out of general interest and partly because of my own legal troubles (here) with the DMCA.

Where do you read that providing "useful" information on how to circumvent technological measures was found to be illegal? It's possible that a judge could find this to be contributory infringement (under a different section of copyright code) but not the DMCA. It's just not in there.

> Sure, he was prosecuted for trafficking in a circumvention device.
> And, I suppose 2600 was prosecuted for illegally copying DVDs, right?

2600 was prosecuted for trafficking in a circumvention device, as well. (??)

and what about anonymous surfing?

[prestidigital]

http://www.the-cloak.com/Cloaked/+cfg=32/http://ww w.thefreeworld.net/non-US/

What the fuck!?

[autopr0n]

Could you link to any of these? The DMCA SPESIFICALY STATES that does NOT restrict freedom of speech in any way, that you are free to write, and talk about security, and that reverse engineering is legal for security and encryption purposes.

Re:What the fuck!?

[ajs]

You might want to read more carefully. The DMCA does say that reverse engineering is allowed, but only for purposes of developing interoperable software:

(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

Now, as for restricting free speach... heh. The law makes security testing semi-legal by defining a number of tests for legitimate testing. One of these is

whether the information derived from the security testing was used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate infringement under this title

This phrase is scary as hell for people who do security testing, since their activities are essentially judged based on how well behaved their audience is. This is why companies that do security audits are (as in the case of the Red Hat audits) requiring that the results not be released. If they are released to the public, then those security audits could be construed as a violation of the DMCA! So you are right. The DMCA does not restrict speach per se. It just makes companies that perform security evaluation scared as hell to speak....

If you wish to argue these points further, please cite the specific portions of the text that you feel contradict what I've said here. Thanks.

Re:Security holes have NOTHING to do with the DMCA

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Possible solution:

Add to the linux copyright a prohibition on running any code which constitutes a "system protecting a copyrighted work" as defined by the DMCA.

I.e. if you consider your DRM system to be a "system protecting a copyrighted work" as defined by the DMCA, you may not run it on Linux. Acceptance of the license would mean you agree anything you run would not constitute such a system. If the DRM code license prohibits this, then you are simply forbidden from using it (just as the GPL forbids using another licenses restrictions to circumvent its own).

Then we could release patches, since we wouldn't have to worry about circumvention of an access control system which itself is in violation of the Linux license.

Of course, with Kaplan on the bench, we do have to worry. He could just ignore the illegality of the protection system like he ignored fair use. Just requires the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/SPA/IFPI/WIPO to write a big enough check.

Precedent: Kennedy-Kassebaum

[istartedi]

This reminds me of a precedent involving non other than Sen. Edward Kennedy, and another legislator (Sen?) Kassebaum. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill contained a clause that forbade lawyers from explaining how people could protect their assets from Medicaid. The bill passed. It never made it to the Supreme Court. Instead, the Justice department under Janet Reno (she did some things right) decided that it was a violation of the 1st ammendment on its face. They publicly stated that their policy would be not to enforce it. The law still remains on the books as an ugly blotch. Estate planning lawyers advise their clients that it's still on the books, then they go ahead and tell them about the DOJ decision, then they violate the law.

Yes. It's sad. Fixing the law is the right thing to do. Aspects of the DMCA are on par with the K-K restriction. Of course IANAL, but if I were faced with this situation I'd just go ahead and violate the law which is what people are doing. Then either the DOJ will make a similar policy decision, or someone will go to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS can't see this for what it is, then buy a gun because we'll need another revolution to fix it.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

i normally don't do this, but this is really hilarious, please mod it up, and then mod this into oblivion...

Thanks...

They shouldn't _be_ logging Apache

[RonVNX]

If that site truly wants to address DMCA abuses, they wouldn't be keeping Apache logs in the first place.

Re:Don't you get it?

[charon_on_acheron]

So if the US had simply built a camp within Afghanistan, and kept them there, you would be okay with it? You are mad that the US moved them to a non-US area, and can therefore not give them certain rights. But what if they were still on Afghan soil?

Re:More correctly, a human readable explaination..

[NamShubCMX]

What about comments?

As far as I know

// This is code

Does good programming practice becomes illegal under DMCA :P

The solution

[Falconpro10k]

well, ive had enough of this dmca garbage.. it needs to be replealed NOW!!!!!!! the dmca is a violation of our first amendment rights, why doesnt the people the lobbyists are working for just write off piracy as promotion and leave it be. the mpaa and the riaa need to be abolished, and ill say it again, the dmca needs to be replealed, it is NOT the american way!

Cox's jihad

[0x0d0a]

I'm pretty sure that the Register's hinting is dead on -- this whole "make the DMCA look idiotic by making progressively more and more crucial things be inhibited by it" is an ongoing Alan Cox project. He's got a fair bit of tech clout...he might be able to help drop the DMCA.

Give a couple years of building up nasty cases against the DMCA, the EFF decides the time is right, and goes after it.

Re: Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

George Bush isn't the problem. He's nothing more than a mindless pawn of the GOP ("republicans") anyway. Besides, the DMCA was a product of Congress, not the Executive branch. The DMCA was written and passed by a Congress under full control of the GOP, regardless of who was in the White House.

If you're too young to remember the devastation that the GOP brings every time it gets power, maybe you'll emerge from this 2nd Bush Depression all the wiser.

If you're too stupid to remember Bush's platform during the election, and how quickly those promises were broken, then probably nothing will save you from a life as a pawn of demagogues.

On the greater scale, as somebody else pointed out, it's the will (or lack thereof) of the People that is ultimately responsible for travesties like DMCA. In the US, less than half of the people who are eligible to vote do vote. This means that the majority is ruled by a minority! Democracy in INaction. And of those who do get around to voting, very few do any research at all. Most vote based on familial prejudices, TV ads and other heresay. In essence, the will of America is completely in the hands of those who have the means to market to them.

It wouldn't be that way if Americans took responsibility for what they do or fail to do.

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when the election comes around in the near future, DON'T VOTE FOR ANYBODY CURRENTLY IN THE CONGRESS!!
And in two short years, the bad guys are back in office. Not too bright... From the Fools-Who-Didn't-Learn-From-History Department, that's exactly what happened in 1994, giving the GOP a stranglehold on Congress. In 1992, a fed-up America rightly ousted a bunch of republicans, based on the dismal failure of "voodoo economics" among other things. So in 1994, the republicans adopted the "throw the bums out" slogan for themselves, despite the fact that they were the bums that were thrown out in '92. And the stupid Americans blindly followed the slogan without giving it a second look, or remembering history only two years past, and they voted the bums right back into office. And we're right back into the same cycle of war and famine that Democrats worked so hard to get us out of in '92. Clearly the "Las Vegas school of electoral politics" doesn't work very well.

and what's so paranoid about this?

[Stephen Samuel]

Skylerov took some reasonable effort to ensure that his code wouldn't be used improperly. Nontheless, he ended up in jail in a foreign country and unable to return to his home family and job for a long period of time. And now, the US is denying him a visa to return to the States to defend himself against the accusations that Adobe made (and later withdrew) against him.

I can understand that Cox wouldn't want to be skyleroved.. Yes he works for RedHat and RedHat is a US company.... All the more reason to be worried about being made a 'test case'.

It's one thing to cry 'paranoid'. It's another to be told by your lawyer that, should you take what you consider to be a completely reasonable and prudent action, you run the risk of:

• Being arrested and possibly held without bail (risk of flight as a foreign national).
• havin your trip schedule completely messed up.
• being denied access to your primary employer's home state
• having to defend yourself against criminal charges (even if you're found innocent, it could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars).
• If found guilty, you could end up in jail for years.

Remember: We already have Skylerov as example of having this happen to a foreign national.

Given a choice between this, and making a political statement about the stupidity of this law by simply obeying it, what would you do? If you had a family to support, would this change your decision?

Re: Three squares a day

[some guy I know]

A velvet cage is still a cage.

Confused

[DustMagnet]

I'm confused, you just agreed with me. You only added a longer explanation. The DMCA doesn't make it illegal for me to read about the patch. It's the author's license that does.

What part of that is completely wrong? It's straight from the article.

Re:Confused

[MSG]

It's not the author's license that makes it illegal at all. The DMCA may make it illegal for the author to tell you about the problem, because that information can be used to circumvent digital security.

All the crap about not reading the description if you're an American is not about "licensing" the information. The author is trying to protect himself from prosecution for violating the DMCA *himself*. If you read the information he's posted, it's not you who've violated the DMCA, it's the author (potentially).

Does that clear it up?

Re:Confused

[DustMagnet]

If you read the information he's posted, it's not you who've violated the DMCA, it's the author (potentially).

Right, that's what I said. Reading it doesn't violate the DMCA. That was the point in my comment. The comment I responded to, thought the DMCA said he couldn't read it. The DMCA doesn't say you can't read it, it says the author can't let you read it. That's the subtle difference I tried to point out.

I give up.

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, Troll?
Oh yeah, it must because he was lying. Oh wait, it's all true.

Maybe because it was irrelavant. Nope, not that either.

Oh, I get it! Yet another moderator who doesn't like a post, so they mod it down. Good work. Sure beats actually responding.

The only censorship I see here...

[Dragoness Eclectic]

..is by the anti-American anti-DMCA morons in Europe.

Anti-DMCA

Yeah, the DMCA has some very bad provisions that need to be re-done or tossed entirely. It has a few good sections, too--like the clause that says copying a program to memory to run it or installing it on your hard disk is a de jure non-infringing use of a copyrighted work. Said clause invalidates the old traditional basis of EULAs--that normal use is infringing by definition, therefore you must have a license to use your software. Nope, not any more. The only remaining basis for EULAs is contract law, and unilaterally-imposed, no-signature, after-the-sale contract conditions are a bit shady, to say the least. So, part of the DMCA is good--it gives us a legal basis to trash bad EULAs.

We want to get rid of the idiotic "circumvention device" clauses--the ones that are being mercilessly abused to supppress competition and research, and the one-sided "safe harbor" provisions that are used to chill free speech by intimidating Hosting Services into yanking perfectly legal speech from the web until its proven innocent at the time and expense of the victim. The provisions of the DMCA that are abused show us which provisions need to be tossed or re-done. It's being looked at, and the more obnoxious provisions are getting wrung out by the courts.

Anti-American

So Free Software is now only "free" to countries whose politics you agree with? What a load of crap! I don't see anyone making sites of software and information available to everyone except, say, China or Saudi Arabia. Why not? You could be arrested if you went to China after saying anything bad about their political system, or arrested if you went to Saudi Arabia while publishing a website with scantily-clad women on it--or pirate copies of "Satanic Verses".

While you're at it, better block all French sites if you discuss WWII or mid-20th century European history--you might mention Nazis. Better block Germany if you are a religious site that says rude things about anyone else's religion--even in a historical context. Thomas Payne's papers are extremely inflammatory and insulting toward the British monarchy, so Project Gutenberg had better block Great Britain--I think lese majestie is still a crime over there. Any site that hosts the writings of Martin Luther had better block most of the majority-Catholic countries in the world--I believe it is a crime in Italy and Germany to defame the Church.

Shall I continue? The Un-Freeworld site is run by a bunch of hypocrites, and Alan Cox is just as much a hypocrite if he supports it. A bunch of Europeans have decided they are going to take their ball and go home because we Americans won't play the way they want, when they want--then they have the temerity to call themselves supporters of "free" software.

Ballocks.

Free software is NOT about "you can't see my code if I don't like your politics". The latter is called CENSORSHIP . Anyone with the attitude of this so-called TheFreeWorld site is a damn liar and hypocrite if he calls himself a support of free software, because he's just another fucking censor. ...morons

Oh yeah, the Freeword site claims to restrict access to non-U.S. computers, but it does not. I downloaded stuff from it just fine. Like every other fill-in-the-form, jump-through-the-stupid-hoops site, you lie through your teeth to get at the "free" content. And ignore the stupid license with the stupid unenforceable threats.

Hypocritical morons.

Re:The only censorship I see here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sit down and shut up, you ignorant redneck flag-waver.

No more replies

[Ruliz Galaxor]

The DMCA is a bug which could be exploited, for example by Lawyers.
So you cannot talk about it, which means also in court of course.
This makes it illegal to use the DMCA, because of the DMCA.
So actually what I'm saying here is illegal, because this could be exploited.
Damn, glad I live in Europe these days :S

sig(h)

Re: Killing Ants

[Dragoness Eclectic]

I prefer to use Orthene. One tablespoon nails a whole nest within the day.

But then, I really, really hate fire ants. Ever accidently stepped in a nest of the little buggers? Fire ants are the rabid, poison-fanged, enemies of all mobile life besides themselves; they will happily swarm over any creature of any size that disturbs their nest and try to bite it to death. ...I want to see the little bastards die in writhing agony. En masse. Squashing them is just too inefficient.

What are you wearing?

[sx10]

Who else thinks the kernel patch contents would make an excellent t-shirt?

Re:US Citizen? You're basically fucked (as I am)..

[crazyphilman]

That's heartening, as Canada is one of the nicer possible destinations for a fleeing American. Actually the stories I've heard didn't mention Canada, specifically, most of them were from people who had gone on vacation in Europe or England and had someone just come up to them out of the blue and start hollering at them. One guy said that he was walking down the street in Italy and a cop pulled him aside to inform him that he should be ashamed of himself, in a big unpleasant speech! I think that that one took place during the first Bush's presidency.

I'm really a quiet person actually -- I usually hole up in my apartment and tinker with old laptops and such, and all I really want is to be left alone. This is why the possibility of random strangers just suddenly hating me is so horrifying. Not that the possibility of all sorts of perfectly legitimate activities suddenly being made illegal in the name of "homeland security" makes me feel any better.

Your post is very reassuring to me, though; it makes Canada, at least, look very attractive. For the record, here's my take on "things U.S.":

On Bush: His "diplomacy" really turns me off (ANOTHER war with Iraq? WHY?) and the way he's irritating everyone kind of freaks me out. I disagree with almost all of his policies except for the war in Afghanistan, which I think was just (I'm a New Yorker, and my Dad was scheduled to be in a meeting right next door to the trade center, cancelled just in time). Of course, that war is more or less over, isn't it? New government in power, etc? Reconstruction in progress? I thought Afghanistan was more or less straightened out by now, even building schools and such. And, no one has seen or heard from Osama Bin Laden in months, so I'm guessing he's probably dead, but that's just my opinion... Ah, well.

On the U.S. Legal system: It totally horrifies me. Unlike Europe, Canada (I think) and most of the rest of the world, cases are tried by two lawyers competing with each other -- NOT two barristers trying to find out the TRUTH!!! So the truth actually doesn't come into the picture at all. Horrifying. The result, of course, is that rich people can get away with murder (cough, cough OJ cough cough), poor people get electrocuted, gassed, or put to sleep whether they've done anything or not, and no one (except the rich) is really happy with the system. Now, think about THIS: some little hacker kid can actually get LIFE IMPRISONMENT for messing around with a computer system, whether he actually hurts anyone or not. I mean, that's just amazing, isn't it? Kinda freaks me out. And, you KNOW that some creepy D.A. is going to try and make that happen one of these days, don'tcha? Looks SO good on that resume...

Consider THIS: Instead of trying to rehabilitate a hacker, the courts here bar him from using ANY TECHNOLOGICAL DEVICE!!! So he can't use a cell phone, access the web... Basically they try to destroy the guy. Someone whose only potentially useful skill is computer related can't use a computer! So much for rehabilitation... But I digress. Picture how horrifying this is to a guy like me, who programs for a living. Not that I'm a hacker or anything, I'M NOT, but still. The sympathy pains are pretty strong!

On Guns: I don't personally hunt, so I don't have much need for 'em. I see guns as opportunities to get in trouble. If you own one, and you lose your temper, things can go FUBAR pretty fast. In countries where people aren't armed to the teeth, well, the worst that usually happens is someone gets punched in the mouth. Seems like a better situation, you know? One troubling thing is that lots of states are passing "concealed carry" laws which let everyone pack heat after filing for a license. They're arguing about that in Ohio right now. VERY SCARY. I can tell you, I won't be visiting any of THOSE states anytime soon. "Hey, you dented my bumper! You prick! POW POW POW POW!" Suuuuuure. Sounds like a GREAT idea. ;)

On tech in general: It's a terrible shame that the U.S, which originally spawned a lot of the technology we use daily, is now setting up a situation in which new developments will be slowed down or stopped just so patent holders can make an extra buck for their portfolio and the MPAA and RIAA can keep charging inflated prices for their dopey crap.

Overall, I'm really sad about how things are going. I don't want to give up on my country just yet, I mean, Bush is going to get voted out by a massive landslide in the next election (I hope, I pray), and there's a chance someone a little more normal will get into office (I voted for Nader last time, but this time I'm voting Democrat as the "lesser of two evils" in hopes of ousting Bush even though I usually don't vote on the "why bother, it's all rigged anyway" principle...). And, a lot of the lousy legislation in place right now is under attack in the courts, so it might all be a bad memory, like a hangover that fades away, fairly soon.

Of course, if Bush gets in for a second term, anything goes. Say, how hard IS it to apply for Canadian citizenship? Unfortunately for me I don't know French so I don't think I'll be accepted in Quebec... They make you demonstrate fluency, don't they?

P.S. I do actually drive a pick up but it's a very, very small one and gets great mileage (it's a 4 cylinder, and gets "up to" 23 miles per gallon depending on conditions). The rating is 19 city, 23 highway, but I don't get quite that good results...

Redhat patch, outside US web sites and the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome comrade...

You are now entering the United Socialists Republic of the DMCA land... You cannot speak, read or hear anything about this land, or anything within or external, without express written, and congressionally approved permission, on stamped, certified and legally approved papers.

Please take your seat in one of our state approved chairs with specially designed built-in listening devices to make sure you are not doing or saying something that might be harmful to those in power here. Any single mis-spoken word will get you 30 years hard time in federal prison system with big fat guy named "bubba" who likes long things inserted into a rectially part of his anatomy.

I think you see where this is going...

Re:One day...

[crazyphilman]

Sigh.

In response:

I've been sitting here trying to figure out whether you just called me "ignorant and arrogant". I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt (something I doubt you ever give anyone else): I'm going to assume you didn't mean to call me ignorant and arrogant.

Again, though, I will reiterate: After pulling Europe's fat out of the fryer in two world wars, helping them rebuild and then forgiving ALL of their loans (think France), I really don't think it's fair that Europeans are so mean spirited towards Americans. And, honestly, considering the stories I hear from people who've been over there, I wouldn't set foot in Europe if my life depended on it. I don't voluntarily spend time with people who find it amusing to be cruel to me.

And, yes, you guys really ARE really cruel to us, so don't give me any blather about how you just hate the Government and "ignorant and arrogant" Americans. After all, whenever you're in the mood to pick on someone, whatever poor soul you latch on to will suddenly be painted as the "ignorant and arrogant American" you want them to be, for your purposes that is.

You know, on another thread I got a different post from a very nice Canadian who says that people there aren't mean or rude to Americans, and can separate their distaste for American government from their feelings about individual Americans; this in my view implies that Canadians are pretty okay people. Thinking about it, all the Canadians I've met have been pretty easy to get along with so I'd guess this is true.

I sure hope whoever wrote this post isn't from Canada. Because if he is, well, so much for the idea of Canadian friendliness.

STFU!

[dirvish]

dumb ass

Re:One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, I thought I made myself clear that the "ignorant and arrogant" section was a paticularly narrow one. Like I said, there are just enough out there to perpetuate the stereotype, not everyone is like that.

Secondly, the US deserves all the credit in the world for the things it did(though, as I said, they did *NOT* singlehandedly save the allies in WWII.), but how much is enough? Do Americans dwell on the War of 1812? It's (likely) a matter of national pride to downplay that part of it, which leaves the Americans not getting the credit they deserve.

Also, don't make assumptions about me -- especially on a place like slashdot, where you can't really read up on every posters history(especially the ones who are posting anonymously because they are on 12 step slashdot plans :) ). I'm just telling things like they are, and telling you the things the international community is saying behind your back. I figured you'd deserve to know that some people in your country are dragging your countries name through the mud, and that's why I said it. Call it a flaw, but I don't like living a lie. I'd much rather have things out in the open so they can be discussed as we are doing right now, than keep quiet. This has nothing to do with "ignorance and arrogance", but a "do unto others..." mentality I tend to have. Personally, I need to know if something I do is irritating, so I can change that behaviour. If nobody tells me, I feel that's worse than being knocked down a few notches.

Finally, I am Canadian. I am a nice guy, but there are times when the conversation turns to darker subjects. Notice the distinct lack of the words "poopy head" in my post :). Canadians as a whole are nice and polite to Americans, but that doesn't mean that you guys are automatically 100% in our books(and again, that's not to say we hate you either -- I know quite a few americans who are great guys). Everyone has flaws, and I thought it might be helpful to enlighten you as to those flaws, so you would understand why some other nations *are* nasty to Americans sometimes. Understanding is the first step towards peace(even on an individual level).

Now I'm going to get back to repairing our national igloo.(j/k)

Anyway, I need to go to work now. Please respond if you have something else to say, because I will be keeping an eye on this thread.

hmm...

[42forty-two42]

I'm getting the strangest feeling of deja vu...

Dictionary Definition...

[cnelzie]

Just read this dictionary definition of a Republic.

By saying that the US has a Representative Democracy, you are saying that we have a Republic form of government. It means the same thing.

However, you cannot say that we live in a Democracy, as a true Democracy is one in which every law is put to a vote by ALL of the people, not just representatives of the people. If you are going to use Democracy to explain the United States form of government it simply must be preceded with Representative or another word with a similar meaning.

As for your comment about a single source... Isn't that what you are doing? By the way, that is not anecdotal evidence. Did you bother to read the previous link that I send to you?

Re:Dictionary Definition...

[drxenos]

You seem to be under the impress that I made the term "Representative Democracy" up. I did not coin it; I did not pull it out of my butt. Besides, never rely a dictionary definition of a complex term. It's definitions of these words is always to simplistic.

frigging brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a fantastic article. welcome to the future, ladies and gentlemen - where your ass is so restricted you aren't even allowed to take care of yourself.

it is a fundamental REQUIREMENT of the world of the DMCA and the Fritz chip that users be blind to the workings of their computers. it is an inevitability that in such a world it is illegal to understand the workings of your OS or software. if you read the Fritz legislation, it quid pro quo outlaws open source!

only one thing to do now - start building our OWN computers, out of banana leaves and coconut shells, just like on gilligan's island. :)

Re:One day...

[crazyphilman]

Well... I'm glad you weren't directing the "ignorant and arrogant" thing at me. Maybe I'm a little too touchy at times. I was picked on as a child, so I tend towards hypersensitivity to that sort of thing. No hard feelings, then?

I think we might agree on most of the basic facts about WWII, while saying a similar thing differently. I'm not saying that we saved the day all by ourselves, but we did do a whole lot of work, and without us, I think the rest of the world would have probably gotten conquered by Germany and Japan, with those two powers probably ending up fighting each other (as Germany turned on Russia, it would have certainly turned on Japan). Remember, by D-Day the Nazis controlled all of Europe except for Russia and some parts of Yugoslavia, and Japan basically owned the Pacific until we got involved over there. The Pacific war may have been separated from the "thrust" of the main part of the war but it was definitely equally significant and covered a large portion of the world in terms of Japanese influence.

In Europe, without American supply convoys Britain would have starved from lack of essential supplies long before D-Day. This is why U-Boats deliberately targeted commercial vessels, which led to the creation of convoys in the first place. Also, bombing campaigns couldn't be carried out by Britain until the air war over Britain had been stopped, so the destruction of the German war machine (factories, supply lines, etc) didn't really commence until the Americans came in to relieve the pressure on England. Without the destruction of Germany's means of production, the war could not have been won, and much of this destruction was performed by American bombers. Let alone the fact that Americans made up a large part of the force that invaded Normandy on D-Day, and carried out the actual ground war in Europe. Let's give credit where credit is due, if we're going to be fair all around.

That's all I'm trying to say. Our part in WWII definitely counts as "pulling Europe's fat out of the fryer". Without us, the supplies we sent and the troops we sent, WWII would not have been won by the Allies. No matter how you analyze it, this is a basic truth and it's only fair to recognize it.

To be equally fair, I don't believe that just because we helped people fifty years ago, they owe us everything, forever. That's not what I'm trying to say. I just wish they wouldn't *hate* us so much. It's not a huge thing to ask. You know?

ALSO TO BE FAIR, there are ignorant and arrogant Americans. And, to be completely honest, I've been misused and abused by them all my life. It's a sad fact that in America if you're one of the smart kids, all the other kids hate you. They beat you up, they call you names, they make you a pariah... See, what you were supposed to do when I was growing up was pretend to be just "average", look like everyone else, and fit in. I didn't do it, because all I wanted to do was curl up with a book, so I grew up without any friends whatsoever.

Believe me, I understand how a European or Canadian might get seriously ticked off if some American redneck starts spouting off about how we ought to do this, or that, or some other crazy thing. If a tourist was to start acting like an asshole just because a hamburger looks a little different, for example. If someone were to do some stupid assed thing, and get his ass whipped, well, most of my friends (I have some now, thank God) would just say, "yep, he had it coming". And, that's cool with me, you know?

I just wish people wouldn't go on the assumption that I'm going to act like that, with the result that I don't even want to visit Europe because I know someone's going to mess with me. It's just not fair.

And, I think it's also not fair that we have this president who we definitely did NOT vote into office, who is making us look like a nation of psychotic, bloodthirsty idiots. So, everyone's going to hate us because he blew up someone else today, and so on, and now we're all trapped here in the U.S. and have to go on vacation in Miami instead of Europe. See? It just isn't cool.

The point I was trying tactlessly to make is this: Over our history, we've done good things and bad things. This century, we've done some very, very good things (and, yes, some really dumb things and the current prez isn't helping our numbers any). So, I just think that considering the good we've done, maybe we should get a little slack -- not in terms of allowing us to blow up anyone, but rather in terms of leaving the tourists alone until they really deserve to be abused. Some will! But not all.

Anyway, that was what I was trying to get across.

By the way: here's another thing I didn't think was particularly fair. When some third world country's president fixes the election, doesn't the U.N. come in and do something about it? But, when ours does, the rest of the world does nothing. Double standard?

NO! NO! NO! PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!

[Anonymous Coward]

These DMCA songs aren't even funny. Please mod to -1 and stop posting them!