Slashdot Mirror


"Super-DMCA" Outlaws Ph.D. Thesis

zenquest writes "SecurityFocus reports in this article that a recently-enacted Michigan law makes the graduate work of Niels Provos illegal. (His honeyd project was discussed here a few months back.) According to the article, "Among other things, residents of the Great Lakes State can no longer knowingly "assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise" any device or software that conceals "the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service." It's also a crime to provide written instructions on creating such a device or program. Violators face up to four years in prison." Provos has had to move his website and research papers to a server in the Netherlands. Similar bills are under consideration in seven states, and have become law in six others. The EFF has more information about the individual states. So, does this mean that Caller-ID block now illegal, as well?"

55 of 556 comments (clear)

  1. outrageous by drizuid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is outrageous, how far will the DMCA go before those in charge realize what it's doing to us. How much will it take before soemone decides to put an end to it.

    1. Re:outrageous by Lobo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It will go as far as we allow the politicians to take it. Tell them what you think via snail mail or by phone, if that does not work tell them at the polls!

      --

      -------
      Bite Me Fanboy!!
    2. Re: outrageous by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


      > It will go as far as we allow the politicians to take it. Tell them what you think via snail mail or by phone, if that does not work tell them at the polls!

      Votes are anonymous; your plan is probably illegal in Michagan.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:outrageous by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Presidents don't pass laws, Congress does. All the President can do is use an (overrideable) veto, which they don't do very often, only on those issues which are truly fundamental to their platform. I think it's safe to say that nobody in Washington is informed well enough on this front to make it their central legislative focus, so the lobbyists get to define the details and steer the bill into law.

      However, this Michigan case doesn't really relate to the DMCA, does it? It sounds like it's targetting towards cable theft, but is written overly broadly and catches a huge array of legitimate activity within its net.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    4. Re:outrageous by workindev · · Score: 5, Funny

      This makes sense. You don't like a law that a Democrat sponsored, a Democratic legislature voted for, and a Democratic president signed into law. Of course the obvious thing to do is blame the Republicans. Sounds reasonable.

    5. Re:outrageous by elmegil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Get off it. Fritz Hollings, the senator from Disney, is a Democrat. Politicians are bought and sold by the corporations at this point, and it doesn't matter one damn bit whether they're Republican or Democrat. To say otherwise is being blind to reality, and only likely to start fights between ourselves instead of against those who we need to target.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    6. Re:outrageous by Carbonite · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Clinton may have passed the DMCA...

      That's right, a Democrat signed the DCMA. It was passed unanimously by both the House and Senate, which obviously means not a single Democrat voted against it. Yet you somehow believe it's the fault of the Republicans?

      As for eradicating intellectual dissenters in the US, that should be a rather easy task since I've seen so few. Most dissenters seem to do little more than chant rhyming nonsense. It's rare that they use facts to back up their arguments, instead relying on the tired "War for Oil" and "Bush = Hitler" mantra.

      --
      ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
    7. Re:outrageous by Carbonite · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd say the Republican's have done a very poor job of managing the economy since they took over.

      I'd say that you overestimate the government influence on the economy. The government can nudge and even push the economy at times, it can't drag it from recession to prosperity. Also, if you study the stock market, you'll notice the downward trend startied in the middle of 2000, when Clinton was still President.

      --
      ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
    8. Re:outrageous by elmegil · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I agree that the original poster has their head up their nether regions, but....

      Most dissenters seem to do little more than chant rhyming nonsense.

      I take issue with this. Every time I've tried to have a rational conversation with a pro-war person, they've devolved into frothing at the mouth and repeating the same tired propaganda which they have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Even if I can be adult enough to agree to disagree because I have some respect for them (in some cases, not all), I still get cheap shots about how all protesters and dissenters are supporting terrorism etc. There is no open mind for any kind of dialog there, just blind acceptance that what the government says must be true because "they're in a position to know".

      It seems ludicrous that you dismiss all dissenters based on public activity in forums where you just can't have a long thought out discussion (I can't say I look forward to the idea of large crowds of people reading dissertations). Try actually having a discussion with someone in person or somewhere like warblogging.com before you dismiss all of us because of some of us.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    9. Re:outrageous by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sad attempt? I think the sad attempt was your attempt to deflect blame FROM the republicans.

      Welfare has what to do with intellectual property?

      The reason it is seen as a Republican issue is because it is a big business big money issue, and when big business speaks, the Republican party listens. They are so busy enriching themselves, they have no time to listen to anyone who is unwilling to line their pockets.

      The people who are hurt by this legislation are the very people you purport to be speaking for: The hard working, american dream believing entreprenuers, who don't have corporate muscle behind them. Do you think Microsoft is being hurt by this? Sony? Intel? Dell? The RI-fricking-IA?

      You want to talk partisan politics? I hate all politicians who listen harder to the rich than the poor; that includes democrats as well as republicans. Any law that favors a bloated market strangling monopoly over 99% of the rest of us can only be enacted by a government that is sitting in the pocket of corporations. This includes Republicans especially, but democrats as well.

      We have a government that is so totally corrupted by big money that something like the damn DMCA could pass by the margin that it did! It's so fricking typical that you blame "big government" when you should be blaming big business!

      Grow a brain man. You're getting royally screwed just like the rest of us.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    10. Re:outrageous by nytes · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ha! I got you there! Bill Clinton:
      1) Signed the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act.
      2) Signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
      3) Signed the DMCA.

      There you have it - Proof that Clinton was working against the corporate interests, for the little guy, and for a more free and open society.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    11. Re:outrageous by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 3, Offtopic

      That smells like short-term memory to me.

      The economics that allowed for a decline in welfare and a budget surplus were created under a conservative administration and eroded away by the previous liberal administration. The U.S. economy began it's down-turn well before G.W.Bush took office, not after. Bush inherited the economic mess the previous administration left behind.

      More pointedly, the economic model of corporations trying to appear profitable as opposed to actually being profitable also hurt America's economy. When stock values went down, all the big corporations resorted to improving their "operations cost" by cutting payroll, hence cutting jobs. Executives did this regardless of how profitable the corporation was at the time.

      This is not a problem caused by the current administration, or even the previous one. Nor was Enron, or WorldCom. This was a problem caused by greed (IMHO).

      This same problem of greed, both on the part of the MPAA and their cousins in the cable companies, and the lobbyists and politicians, produces rushed laws that do more harm than good. When the laws of the land were first developed, they were considered thoughtfully. Great care was taken to represent the interests of the people. Legislators felt a heavy moral responsibility to make good decisions and good laws on behalf of the people who elected them

      The moral impetus to represent public interest has been one or two steps removed from public office for quite a while. The driving force is to get reelected, and so, to make money. Corporate interests form a copious source of money, and hence legislation is passed without thought about the consequences for individuals, or even for the "economic good." Bad motive begets bad law.

      Writing law can be like writing code: undesirable coupling yields side effects.

    12. Re:outrageous by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 3, Funny
      Every time I've tried to have a rational conversation with a pro-war person...

      Every time I've tried to have a rational argument with an anti-war person, they've devolved into frothing at the mouth, repeating the same, tired propaganda which they have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. If you support the war, you get cheap shots from protesters and dissenters calling you bloodthirsty murderers who place human life second to oil profits.

      Certainly no argument, however lucid and rational, will ever convince an anti-war protester that taking out a ruthless dictator is the right thing to do. There is no open mind for any kind of dialog there, just blind acceptance that war is baaad, mmmkay?

      --

      No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

  2. Disgusting by ralico · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it now also illegal to drop an anonymous note into a suggestion box in Michigan?

    --

    SCO to Hell
    1. Re:Disgusting by mgs1000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And you better not forget to put a return address on all of your mail!

  3. Less than 6 hours by k98sven · · Score: 3, Informative

    ..between reposts now.

    Is someone keeping statistics on this?
    Perhaps we could extrapolate CmdrTaco's repost-delay and figure out approximately when he will lose all near-memory and become like the guy in the film Memento?

  4. Quick Question... by nochops · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doesn't this outlaw NAT?

    Think of all the poor little DSL routers out there.

    Oh the humanity!!

    --
    "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
    1. Re:Quick Question... by shdowwar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Thats how I read it.

      Yet another example of how politicians pass bills that they never expect to be enforced, just so that they can line their pockets with money. I really do hope that they realize that if this stupidity continues, not only will they be unable to move forward with technology, but they will squash educated thought and push us backwards!

      Just the stuff off the top of my head that would now be illegal...

      Cable/DSL routers for home use
      Private networks for business
      NAT and firewalling
      Proxy servers
      SSH and SSL tunnels
      Email Listservs set to strip off headers

      --
      -------- -Shdowwar And you thought that life was easy.
  5. Which is more illegal, NAT or DNS? by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Informative
    NAT conceals IP addresses from software, which DNS sets up an obscuring layer betwixt the IP addresses and the user for purposes of convenience. In both cases, the IP address is hidden, though still discoverable using the proper methods.

    Add to this caller ID blocking, and most importantly, Anonymous Cowards.

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:Which is more illegal, NAT or DNS? by Ryosen · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean they finally figured out a way to get rid of Windows XP? =)

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
  6. Bright Side by 4of12 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Slashdot won't be getting any more AC posts from Michigan.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Bright Side by Pembers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Better yet, if this law really is as broad as claimed, most software for sending spam is now illegal in Michigan. It might even be illegal to operate an open relay, or to use one for spamming. Persuading law enforcement to go after a spammer on these grounds would be another matter altogether, I suppose.

  7. what about caller id blocking by dalesyk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone should inform the telcos that they cannot offer this service anymore. Then the army of telco lawyers will kill the bill.

    1. Re:what about caller id blocking by naoursla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Better yet, what about caller id. If they don't send you the signal are they hiding the origin. Does this mean that they are legally required to provide caller id information to everyone?

  8. What worries me by kinnell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... is that the US will use it's diplomatic muscle to force laws like this on those of us who live in the free world.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    1. Re: What worries me by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful


      > ... is that the US will use it's diplomatic muscle to force laws like this on those of us who live in the free world.

      It's not the diplomatic muscle you have to worry about. For the USA, "diplomacy" now means telling everyone else what's going to happen. Then the ordinary sort of muscle is engaged.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  9. Dear Ted Turner, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Our group is putting together a hostile takeover bid for Haliburton, or even better, Bechtel. Could you please see your way to helping us out with a few million dollars?

    thx,
    The Comittee to Buy Back the Constitution

  10. Why does he think he can just move it? by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The law is of course idiotic - I won't bother to comment on it.

    But why does he think he can just move the stuff to the Netherlands? He is still a US citizen and a Michigan citizen, and he is still producing the documents that are illegal. It doesn't matter where he publishes _to_, it's where he publishes _from_.

    If a Dutch citizen published it then fine - it's legal there, but he's not accomplishing anything by putting the documents in another country, and I don't know why he thinks he is. If they wanted to prosecute they could.

    1. Re:Why does he think he can just move it? by bheerssen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think that the point is that he no longer has those documents in his possession. No documents, no crime. The documents in question were written before the law came into effect, and he apparently moved them immediately when it did go into effect. But being electronic documents, he should be absolutely certain that no unintentional copies remain on his computers.

      This brings up an interesting question, if I live in Michigan (which I don't), would it be illegal for me to view the docs on the web? I mean, once having viewed them, I would have a cached copy on my computer.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
  11. Re:Where's this coming from? by jasonditz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. Fear of technology that most of the congress doesn't understand

    2. Greater fear of those who know about that technology and therefore must be dangerous.

    3. Blind desire to control the actions of everybody else.

  12. Caller ID by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The law makes it illegal to hide the information from a service provider without the service provider's permission. In the case of caller ID, the service provider is the telephone company. You are not hiding the onformation from them, and even if you were, by using the service they provide, they are giving permission.

  13. Other legal documents by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So I can legally post software that tells people how to create a bomb. Posting how to create a bomb on a web site has been to federal court and protected. But I can't write software to conceal a communications device? Which is more dangerous? And where does it end? Will anyone in the federal government be able to say code is a form of speech any time soon?

  14. The future of science in the US by godIsaDJ · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is a disturbing trend. It seems that science in the US is undermined by political, economical and social factor, most of which are of arguable intent and nature.

    I do research on security and cryptography related technologies. I'm happy I don't have to deal with this kind of censorship and I wish to express my sympathy for Provos. He's not even american for fuck's sake. And Honeyd is probably used more for protection by admins than by hackers around!

    I wonder, is he gonna get the phd after all??

    Another scary example, scarier perhaps if not so blatant, is this http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,130 26,933055,00.html

  15. Well, so much for... by Quixadhal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    electronic voting machines. Guess we'll be stuck with good old paper punch voting machines in Michigan, since it would be a felony to allow democratic voting practices via any electronic medium under the new law.

  16. And *69? by siskbc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can the phone companies in Michigan offer caller-ID block? Should be illegal to do that too.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  17. Hitler and Stalin laughing in their graves by DailyGrind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Originally I was upset that Canada, where I live, did not follow the US, its close ally, into Iraq.

    This single post change all that.

    I believe that anonymity is the basis of a healthy democracy. It takes a lot of guts to stand up and say something controversial without being anonymous. I believe that the benefits of anonymous statements far out way the costs.

    The "...this is illegal because terrorists can use it..." argument is getting stale...

    There is a fine line between safety and police state and the US is passing it in a hurry.

    So hats of to living in Canada the home of the free.... until the US invades because we are thinking of legalizing possession of marihuana. As you know marihuana is a drug and drugs support terrorism.

    --
    You will have to pry my proprietary software $$$ from my cold dead hands!
  18. Re: Move by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is everyone votes for democrats and republicans.

    There is no significant difference between the two. Neither one has any intention of doing anything other than enlarging government and reducing freedoms.

    Anyone who doesn't yet realize this has a screw lose, or their head buried in the sand.

    Most will grab a single issue and say "I can't vote Libertarian because they like pot!" So they'll agree on 98% of the issues, but instead, vote for a republican that they disagree with on 7 5% of the issues because of pot, or abortion, or one other authoritarian leaning in them.

  19. Government Stepping On Itself by Flamesplash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I work for large academic Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) lab that for the most part works on DoD contracts. We are allowed to connect to work from home via secure ID cards and are encouraged to get a free single port router from work to use at home, these routers employ NAT for extra security.

    Does that mean that people who work for organizations that do DoD work can no longer protect their home systems, and thus protect the governmental work systems?

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
  20. write your rep & colorado by skydude_20 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Two things to note, first, if you haven't, please write your state senators and reps right now, either to stop the chance of this happening or hoping that in states that its too late, that they might review and amend.
    Second, for all you fellow Coloradans, this is currently in the works (SuperDMCA), I think it's going to pass the senate without issue, so please those of you write your reps and senators and stop this one while we still can.
    Thanks.

    --
    Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
  21. Michigan ACs, beware! by mysticgoat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So does this also mean that slashdot has to

    • block everybody from Michigan, or
    • set up a filter so people from Michigan don't have the A.C. option, or
    • do away with Anonymous Coward?

    After all, the whole thing with AC is disguising the source of the post.

    Worrisome, this is.

    [note to moderators: Don't mod as "funny". This is truly serious tinfoil hat stuff. Think about it.]

  22. The Power Given to Government by Creep73 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This law will be used like many others. According to the law caller ID blocking and NAT will be outlawed however you will probably not see the removal of the DSL router from the market. What you will see however, is the hypocritical application of a law that shouldn't be in existence. Law makers and companies will use this law to further their wants and desires while ignoring any possible blow back the law could have on them. I personally would get highly upset if I were to find a Michigan resident complaining on /. who has not sent a strong letter to their legislature. For some reason I can not see this type of law lasting long if people were contacting their representatives to tell them what they thought of their voting habits. Unfortunately I think that you have a great many people complaining on /. and leaving the government to do its own thing which leaves all power in the hands of the government where it doesn't belong. Most officials, when it comes to technology, are stupid so educate them! Most officials have a long line of companies and such asking that official to protect them (the company) and their products and a short list of individuals asking them to protect the individual and their rights as consumers and Americans. What is the point? The individual will be the one to get hosed here. Caller ID blocking will not go away. If you don't like the law try writing your representatives while posting on /.

  23. anonymous = unsigned + unaccountable by Speare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The legal notion of 'anonymity' is actually comprised of two components: can you publish or do something without directly indicating your identity, and can you avoid being held accountable for your actions or statements. The blanket term of 'anonymity' just blurs the issues.

    The courts have consistently decided that you can operate "unsigned," in that it would abridge or chill your freedoms of speech and silence to make your identifying signatures compulsory.

    The courts have NOT supported the notion that you could operate in a way that you are "unaccounted;" if an illegal and unsigned statement or speech or action can eventually be tracked to you, then you must face the consequences.

    What matters here is whether NAT or DNS or Caller-ID blocks or DoD/RSA mechanisms are going to be seen as attempts to be unsigned, or unaccountable. The legislatures have rarely put much careful attention to this distinction; this may have to be handled by the more contemplative (and usually better-informed) judiciary.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  24. It's real simple... by sterno · · Score: 5, Funny

    Republican politicians - rich people
    Democratic politicians - guilty rich people

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  25. he's right by bogie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Republicans do a lot of talk about the need to dismantle the "bloated" Federal government but really they only want to dismantle some of it. They want to dismantle all of the social programs and consumer rights laws while at the same time building a permanent massive police state that invades every aspect of our lives.

    Even worse then the spying are the secret search warrants which bypass the judicial system.

    People are being held for anything, for any length of time, and without access to the outside all under the guise of "protecting the citizens(aka the state).

    Librarians are being hushed with threat of jail time and we have a Pres. who has made it clear how he feels about those who don't support his right to conquer anyone for any reason.

    This is all like some bad dream and the 1984 jokes aren't even funny anymore. I no longer laugh at those Rednecks hiding in the woods waiting for the government to come and seize their guns.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  26. Routers, etc. by joncarwash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All I can say to Michigan State police is have fun collecting every cable/dsl router (that usess NAT) in the state, including those at retail stores and warehouses. Oh, and hope you have enough room in jail for every person who owns one, the manager of the store where the bought it, the delivery boy who delivered it to the store, the truck driver who drove it into the state, and whoever decided to advertise the router in the state. And I am sure there are no routers that use NAT anywhere in any Michigan government office either... right...

    --
    A computer is a valuable tool, so use it and stop whining.
  27. Georgia House Bill 867 by wolf- · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those in the State of Georgia interested in putting forth an opposition to this legislature, my office number is 770.719.3852. My email for this will be hsb867@lobosoft.com.

    I just called our four representatives for District 48. One of them has called me back so far, and said that honestly, single phone calls are in no way as efffective as collective opposition.

    So, if you are a small business owner, a computer consultant, or even just an individual who is looking at a felony record if this passes, email me.

    To find out who your representative is Georgia, you can visit Polling Place and Elected Officials finder at the secretary of states website.

    --
    ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
  28. Re: Move by swordgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No difference between the Dems and the GOP? I disagree.

    Please realise that I'm neither an American citizen nor a resident (although I was a few years back). This is an outsider's point of view.

    However, I feel that there's a fundamental difference between the two. It may not be a difference in intent, but the two parties have different entrenched power, which means different practical goals. Consider that the republicans have been running the "Thinktank for a new American century" since well before Bush jr. was even nominated. That thinktank defines the goals of the US government, and pictures the US as an absolutely authoritative "peacekeeper" of the world, forcing American values on all countries that don't comply, with as much force as possible.

    Now from what I've seen, the democrats have neither the coffers, the non-electoral power, the highly developed back-room infrastructure, or the gall to afford this brand of megalomania, so they have historically tried to get along with the voters and the international community more often.

    Or in other words; while both parties are after the same goals and policies, the Democrats aren't able to implement them through brute force, violence, intimidation, and ruthlessness. The Republicans are.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  29. Re:I have a better idea. by dentar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Make up a separate branch of the government that has its own laws and does not follow the Constitution.

    That's already in place. It's called the Bush Administration.

    --
    -- I am. Therefore, I think!
  30. Re:What if... by certron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >IANAL, but shouldn't anybody ticketed by a hidden
    >radar speed trap be able to use this law to their
    >advantage? After all, if the police are disguising
    >"the existence or place of origin or destination of
    >any telecommunications service," they're in
    >violation of the law. Right?

    I hate to say this, but... "in violation of the law" ? They *are* the law!
    (yes, yes, oversight and fair trials, Constitutional rights, and why not, the Magna Carta...)

    I was just discussing this with someone else a few days ago, how sodomy laws still exist in a number of US states (most places say anything other than missionary style is technically illegal) and not only do the laws require an unreasonable invasion of privacy to enforce, but they are being enforced unevenly, being used to harass certain target people. These laws are just one more tool for the law enforcement establishment (the local police up to the FBI, and the judiciaries that paralell them) to make life difficult for 'undesirable' elements in society.

    Instead of mentioning how KMFDM's "What do you know, Deutschland?" is playing behind me, and the sample 'dogmatic police state' is in it, I'll just make reference to a quote that I can't remember, about how a state passes laws to make everyone a criminal, um, and how that is bad.

    --

    fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
    eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
  31. !!WARNING!! Welcome to a police state ! by boy_afraid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    !!WARNING!! Welcome to a police state !

    You DO NOT have the right to:
    - Have a thought all your own. If you have a thought then you probably copyrighted it from someplace else, you owe us a royalty payment
    - Own a book, you can only rent from a pre-approved list authorized from the US Attorney General
    - A fair an impartial jury, you will be tried in a secret military tribunal.
    - Citizenship. Your US citizenship could be stripped from you when we feel like it.
    - Remain silent. We will harrass and tick you off until you tell us what we want to know, including by using sleep deprevation.
    - Privacy. We see, hear, and know everything about you, including what you do in those long showers you take.
    - Liberty. That was nice while it lasted.
    - Freedom. We own you. We give you the thought and feel of freedom, but we control.
    - Democracy. We actually give you an option of who to vote for, but it doesn't matter because we'll still control the politician with super whores.
    - Taxation with representation. We control the horizontal, we control the verticle, we also control the purse. Everytime we use a bomb, we need to replace it. We decide how much we get paid and how much you get to take home.

    Brought to you by the Ameri-Corp, USA. "The big brother that you always feard."

  32. Both Parties Suck by bigpat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And I mean Suck. They suck the life out of America. They suck the life out of every individual that is forced to work an average of 10 years during their lifetime (based on around a 15% income tax and a 60 year lifespan) in the service not of themselves, but of the federal governement. That is at least 2 months every year working for what? What free people would choose to do that to themselves? And still the federal government can't pay the bills that they are writing...

    Trillions of dollars in debts have been accumulating, yet we still play these stupid games. Oh it's the Dems fault... it's the Republicans. No, it's America's fault. America's fault for not seeing through the daily lies that our elected representatives now even seem to believe themselves. America's fault for believing the carpet baggers when they tell you they have all the answers to your daily struggles. America's fault for signing up for all those credit cards which you can never pay off. American's fault for their forgiveness, when the itinerant congressman or president tell you and themselves that the lies they told were better than the alternative. America's fault for not seeing through the scam of social security from the very beginning... It only works when the population is growing and most people don't live very long, still sound good to you?

    Both parties have ceased representing the interests of citizens in the government, but instead try to banally represent the excesses of goverment back to us in patriotic terms.

    Now we see all these restrictive laws being passed ... and we wonder why? Because we have elected a generation of spinless whanabees. They are so used to believing their own lies, that when a big corporation goes to a congressman and says 'we need your laws to keep us in business', the congressman doesn't think 'is what they are asking consistent with an American value of freedom?'... no, they ask themselves whether the business is big enough to keep the coffers flowing.

    With every iteration, laws become more restrictive more intrusive and more unintelligable. Until one day, noone can live a day of their lives without fear that somehow they are breaking some law and right and wrong are so far removed from the law that only your political connections or your subserviance will keep you out of harms way.

    Big government is bad government.

    And yes, I just did my taxes!

  33. Bye, Bye NAT by bheerssen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Googling for my own state's (Texas) Super DMCA, I found this by Dan Wallach, an asst. professor at Rice University. He has some interesting things to say aout the bills before our House and Senate. So in the interest of fact checking, I looked at the Senate version.

    Sure enough, by the letter of the law, NATs would be illegal. It prohibits owning or creating any technology that is used to knowingly modify a communications sevice in ways unauthorized by the service provider. The bill imposes a Class A misdemeanor for the first offence, except where five or more 'communications devices' are employed in the 'criminal episode'. In that case, the crime is a felony.

    In my home, I have a wireless NAT setup. There are four desktop systems and a laptop that regularly access the internet via that network. Additionally, there is one more desktop that occasionally joins the network. That makes seven discreet communications devices, including the router, that are employed in gaining access. The definition of a communication device is very broad and includes single connectors,switches and connections (presumably between devices). Theoretically, the state could use each cat5 cable and external wireless nic as communications devices, upping my number of devices to 10 or 12. Since my ISP only grants authorized access to one communication device in my service contract, I would fall squarely under the stated definition of a felony under this bill. For running a freakin' home network!

    I freely admit that I use my internet service connection in ways unauthorized by my provider. Sure. And they can cut my service at any time of their choosing if they find out. I accept that. I'm violating the agreement, therefore they have the right to terminate it. Simple, to the point, and effective.

    But now I could become a felon as well. That's where I draw the line. In my opinion, the state has no business enforcing civil contracts with the criminal justice system. That's what the civil courts are for. If my provider cares to, they can try to get compensation for any perceived loss in a civil court. There is no need to make my activities a felony.

    Somethings got to be done. I'm going to do my part and write a letter. Please do yours.

    --
    (Score: -1, Stupid)
  34. Positions by John+Bayko · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The positions aren't really that complicated. It's just that people resist understanding the other side because that might take energy from their protestations.

    Pro war:

    • There is no alternative to war (people are suffering and dying - possible direct threats by Iraq government).
    Weakness:
    • Assumes war will work - possible post-war chaos may be worse.
    • Lack of diplomacy simply pisses off rest of world.
    Anti-war:
    • War will injure and kill innocents.
    • No legal authority.
    Weakness:
    • Peace has also allowed innocents to be injured and killed.
    • Lack of action allows governments to commit far more illegal/immoral acts.
    Also forgotten is, exactly what is the alternative to war? Anti-war seems to be all opposition and no proposition. Pro-war seems to be "one tool fits all". For example, rewind back to January:
    • First, drop main sanctions as long as Iraq coopertes with weapons inspectors. They weren't doing any good anyway. Threaten to re-impose them if inspections are prevented.
    • Once disarmament is completed, drop remaining sanctions but require monitoring of questionable imports (e.g. chlorine imported for water purification must be accounted for, and can be spot-checked).
    • Promote free-trade zone for Arabian League. Countries must be allowed to trade manufacturing, technology, and leverage intellectual resources. Oil is a lazy money source that doesn't promote economic development.
    • Increased economic interaction will require increased (and more open) communication.
    • Foreign aid targeted directly to hospitals, schools, etc., not to governments - but under control of locally elected administrative boards, not the donating countries/groups. Aid is conditional on fair elections which must meet democratic standards - the governments won't be too concerned because it will be too low a level to make policy decisions, but the general population will gain direct experience with practical democracy (not just a theory).
    • Even if the elected representatives want to teach that Israel doesn't exist, let them - democracy should come first. But:
    • Provide independent arabic news and entertainment, to give people a choice. Even if it's initailly banned, see the point above - economic leaders will need more open communication, and will also want the privileges of more open entertainment. As the middle class expands, so will the demands for openness.
    That's just an outline of one possibility. There are others, and many, many more details would need to be addressed. But it is an alternative to war. Unfortunately, it would take a few decades - but then again, this is roughly the U.S strategy for dealing with China ("Constructive Engagement"), so it can be done.
  35. Dark side. by twitter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Slashdot won't be getting any more AC posts from Michigan.

    People in Michagan will no longer be able to look at Slashdot. The ISPs will no longer be able to carry it, you won't be able to tell anyone about it and the Slashcode can't be read, understood or used in Michigan.

    The only forms of communications allowed there now are switched coper networks, broadcast TV and helioscopes, just like Ma Bell and CBS wanted. The rest is just too confusing and had to be scrapped or the Terrorist would have won. The Supreme court of Michigan is at this moment deciding the fate of ventriloquists. Way to go Michingan, you are a state after the hearts of simpletons everywhere. I love you, you love me, we are a happy family.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  36. Herman Go�ring by Blue+Stone · · Score: 3, Informative

    Herman Goëring's testimony at the Neurenberg Trials:

    "Naturally the common people don't want war, but it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship...

    "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...

    "All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

    --
    Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce