Slashdot Mirror
Sen Hatch Would Like To Destroy Filetraders' PCs
CBackSlash writes "Sen. Hatch is interested in technology to remotely destroy computers. But it would only be used if you're downloading copyrighted material, and only the copyright owner should be able to wield this awesome power, since having the feds do it would be against the law. Here is the AP story from Yahoo!."
These people are no smarter than a little kid saying, "I'm a hacker, I can make your computer blow up using the internet." They need to be asking the technology experts solutions to these matters, like Apple's music store. Of course, KaZaA still needs to be eliminated since competition between one legal source of music and an illegial one is kind of silly. However, I can tell these represenatives know little to nothing about technology the way they talk about using these unethical and impractical tactics against music piracy, if they do this, they are no better than who they are fighting.
the next time I see one of my legislators driving around massivly exceeding the speed limit and failing to use thier turn signals I get to follow them home and destroy thier vehicle. To paraphrase Hatch in my context: This may be the only way you can teach somebody about traffic laws. and "There's no excuse for anyone violating traffic laws." The only reason I draw this parrallel is I live close to and grew up near the state capital and this is something that irritates me beyond belief.
The stupidity of our elected officials never ceases to amaze me.
This is not just about file-sharing. It's about the ability of the government to remotely wipe out your computer, and creating the mindset that people whose computers are wiped out must be bad and therefore unworthy of notice or protection. In Ashcroft's America, how long before those of us who visit websites critical of the current regime will have our computers fried as a result?
And there is an excuse for vandalizing a PC?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Vigilante justice is outlawed in every other form -- this is little more than authorizing digital lynch mobs.
I think these silly idea are just meant to direct people's attention away from the real dangerous (DMCA-like) laws. They have no intention to pass this law, just to make the others look "not that bad". That why I say that stpuid things like that *are* safe to ignore because I doubt that even the *AA would really want that passed (e.g. they don't want their whole office shut down in case an accident happens).
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Don't fool yourself and think it's only the republicans.
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
When a child does something wrong, you spank them. Negative reinforcement discourages them from doing it again. But why spank them? Because otherwise, there would be no natural consequences that the child can immediately see - the child can't see how refusing to share his/her toys is a bad thing, so you artificially make it a bad thing by spanking them.
Destroying someone's PC as a punishment for copyright violations is like spanking them: artificially making it a bad thing.
Adults spank their children. Adults don't spank other adults. Corporations shouldn't be spanking anybody.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Let me start by saying no sane person agrees with damaging someoneâ(TM)s computer over copyright violations, including the music majors. Iâ(TM)m just trying to explain why Hatch said what he said:
It's well known in certain circles that Hatch is trying to pressure the IT companies into helping to solve the p2p piracy problem. I suspect he doesn't REALLY believe in damaging people's computers, he's just saying that to try and pressure the IT companies into getting something done. He is a song writer himself and is particularly interested in copyright issues but is frustrated with the lack of progress, thus his over zealous comments. He is a politician, after all, so statements like this are just part of his game. There is no way it will ever be legal to trash someoneâ(TM)s computer for a copyright violation since this would be like making it legal to trash someoneâ(TM)s house if they steal cable TV (not gonna happen).
But I do think it's OK for record companies to spoof P2P networks and try to disrupt them.
You think it's okay for American corporations to disrupt activities of American citizens?
Okay, if it's illegal or a civil court issue, fine, take it to court. But since when is it okay for them to decide who's naughty and who's nice and take action themselves?
Oh, it's too expensive to sue everyone? Hmmm. maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe there's a reason "piracy" is so "rampant". Rather than changing the laws to allow themselves to attack without due process perhaps they should look at their business model and current technology and reconsider how they do business.
Me: "Why did you hack into and destroy my PC???"
RIAA: "You had some of our copyrighted material."
Me: "I did not! Prove I had your stuff!"
RIAA: "No, you're the one suing me. You prove it."
Me: "I *CAN'T*! You destroyed my PC!"
RIAA: "A-ha!"
I really hate it when polititians use such blatantly flawed logic. Of course violating copyright laws is wrong, but his suggestion has nothing to do with whether or not it is right share copyrighted material. With that logic I might be defending my decision to shoot the guy who cut me off this morning by saying "There's no excuse for dangerous lane changes." The illegality of an act is never sufficient justification for a particular response.
Just to refresh your memories... Senator Hatch (from my own state, Utah) sponsored the DMCA. That act alone should have ended the guy's career, normally. But the general populace never seems to care about "Internet issues".
He later seemed to flip positions, doing a number of things to help Napster out, and many slashdotters were singing his praises. I was more doubtful, but I bit my tongue, thinking that maybe he had changed. Obviously he has not; either that, or that second big contribution finally came through from the RIAA, so it's time to go to bat for them again.
Here's a great synopsis of what people seemed to generally think of him back in the Napster days: link
I think it's time for us (esp. in Utah) to make sure he doesn't get another term. Even viewed in the most favorable light, the guy is definitely a loose cannon. The big problem is, no one of any quality ever seems to run against him, and in this heavily Republican state, it's unlikely that a mediocre Democrat with no real platform can win.
Remember this moment at the next election, Utahns!
-- Dave
If our constitutional rights are colliding with the interests of the content industry, the proper solution is not to destroy our constitutional rights but rather to destroy the content industry. This is especially the case considering how, in the grand scheme of multinational business, movies and records are small potatoes.
If copyright cannot coexist with freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and due process of law, it is time for copyright to go.
Put it that way to the content industry, and maybe they'll have a strong incentive to think of a workable and non-subversive way to run their businesses.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Enron contributed to democrats. And most of their really bad shit was done during Clinton's watch? Remember the summer of 2000's rolling blackouts?
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Yeah, and it took a republican president to cover his ass. I wonder why?
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
I'll probably get atomized for this, but oh well...
/. surfing session" to be a good 6 or 7 hours at least, you're pretty far off the mark.
I'm curious...How large a drive do you have in your system?
Personally, I would have to restore over 60 gigs of data if my system got wiped...And yes, I could get it all back, but think of the time investment- not everybody runs semi-bare-bones Linux boxes that can made new in an hour or two, ya know.
Unless you consider an "average
Again by my personal example....I would have to copy over the contents of at least 60 full 700 MB backup CDs, reinstall XP Pro, run Windows Update, reinstall all my other programs from source CDs, hunt Kaaza and websites for stuff that I don't have discs for anymore, hunt down registration codes for installations I could re-download, and restore+update an 8 gig Linux partition with at least a year's worth of tweaks.
In any case, "destroying" someone's machine like Sen. Hatch suggests is always wrong...I don't care if there's 60 gigs or 6 megs there.
Before my private property is seized or destroyed, I expect my constututional rights, specifically, those spelled out in the 4th amendment, to be respected.
The Government must not seize or destroy private property without that property's owner being granted due process. And I surely do not consent to a private industry lobbying group (the RIAA) taking the place of The Government, and trouncing that right, either.
If you have done so, please do not continue to advocate the destruction of private property, even under The Best Intentions(tm), or "boosting commerce". If you want to advocate the seizure or destruction of personal assets under ANY circumstances, please only consider doing so after granting the intended victim their constitutionally-guaranteed right of due process.
One's PC typically contains loads of personal information, documents, photos, etc. And are we to believe that law-enforcement never makes mistakes and that the only machines destroyed would be only those belonging to those whose activities warranted it? There are so many problems with this approach (i.e., what if one user on a multi-user computer is doing it--everyone on the machine must pay the price) that Hatch only shows how out-of-touch and ill-educated about modern computers he really is.
And once again, he makes himself a fine example of why Republicans are lying through their teeth when they spout platitudes about taming government intrusiveness and power.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I, for one, just quit the Republican Party, and sent the good Senator a nice message telling him why. I would STRONGLY urge all of you to do the same. Here's a nice little template to follow:
Dear Senator Hatch,
I'm writing to you after reading an Associated Press news article in which you stated your support to destroy the computers of those who infringe on copyrights.
"If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize..." you were quoted as saying.
While I do agree with you that folks downloading entire catalogs of music en masse from the internet are basically thieves, I think this is quite the extreme and wrong stance, especially given the sad state of copyright law that now exists.
It's pretty clear today that copyright now favors large entertainment companies instead of any kind of scientific and social progress as the founders had intended, with copyright terms now exceeding most people's life expectancies (what good is the public domain when the public that could benefit from it no longer exists.) and when laws like the DMCA makes it a crime to copy something for FAIR USE if it happens to be encrypted in the first place. It's also pretty clear that Congress now favors the entertainment companies rather than the people that elected them, when they're willing to advocate or condone a "solution" that would destroy the private property of their constituents, without so much even lip service paid to due process.
Well, if you're willing to be so extreme, Senator, so am I. I just quit the Republican Party. While I'm not from your state, and Pennsylvania is far from a Republican stronghold, I intend to encourage others to do the same.
Maybe a few hundred thousand of us, and you'll realize something.
Sincerely,
Ed R. Zahurak
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
No matter what there will be countermeasures by random hackers.
More to the point, there will be countermeasures by virus writers.
Imagine if the system Hatch proposed (at least, I think it was him at that point in the story) is implemented: two warnings, and your system is destroyed.
Now imagine a virus. If the capability is written into the hardware, all it has to do is trigger it locally. If the capability is somehow, magically, out there in RIAAland, all the virus has to do is download offending material and suppress the warnings.
The virus writer is nowhere to be seen, so the consumer's wrath is going to fall on the folks who put the weapon into the virus writer's hands.
Hmm.
Maybe slashdotters should *back* Hatch in this.
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
To be frank, I know more than one sysadmin out there who would have a bullet with his name on it.
If this happened,a lot of corporate and educational machines would be destroyed, and in terms of damage to the WORLD economy would be immeasurable(but in RIAA dollars, it would probably be in the range of a quadrillion dollars). Considering the pitifully minor nature of the crime he's suggesting he wants fought, I'd ppull the trigger myself for such an act of economic terrorism as well as cyber terrorism.
I think someone should "liberate" his home state from his tyrannical reign.
It's been a long time.
why oh why are such idiots elected to office?
Because too many votors vote single issue: Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
Lower Taxes vs. Increase/Improved Government Services
Gun Control vs. Gun Regulation
Labor vs. Management
etc.
Many people consistantly vote based on one or two issues. This creates an environment where all a candidate needs to do to get elected is aggree with the majority of votors on a couple of key issues.
Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
Heh, think about the following scenario:
The law passes. Bob, the filetrader, afraid to trade at home, sets up kazaa on his work machine. Bob happens to work at a hospital.
Hatch's copyright Nazi's see Bob's traffic, find Bob's IP. Bob's MAC address isn't making it past the router, so they latch onto the gateway's MAC address as the address of the illegally trading machine. They then attack the computer, presumably using some super-secret technology long under development by the RIAA. The attack is successful, they wipe out the gateway, scorch it down to bare metal.
In a hospital. That fits every defnition of cyber terrorism ever written.
How about this: I'm a big time file trader, and I have that thing that they call "computer knowledge". So I spend my time surfing the IP blocks given to ISP's, finding computers that are always on, and spoofing their IP addresses. When the attack comes down the line, WHAM, someone's grandma's home computer gets stomped.
Really, when it comes down to it, all that is pointless. Unless they are going to DOS you, they'll have to try and stick you with some sort of virus. All that will do is give Norton and McAfee a boost in business.
Just my opinion.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Dear Senator Hatch,
...
In case you were not aware, there are already laws against copyright infringement and penalties in place for the violation of said laws. Your remarks during a hearing on copyright abuses are downright frightening. What you are suggesting is a complete disregard for due process. Why not just enforce the existing laws?
You said, "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines." If someone has been prosecuted for copyright violation thorugh the due process of law, then there is no need to remotely destroy computers. The only reason anyone would need to invoke such technology would be if due process of law were being ignored.
The Founding Fathers would find you a disgrace to their vision of American government. When you became a Senator, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I believe that you are in material breach of that oath, particularly the 5th Ammendment.
Regards,
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Is hardly the way to win the hearts and minds of strangers. Any reasoned arguments you make later on in your letter are rendered useless thanks to the fact that you littered them with insults. Regardless of how much of a moron/corporate stooge/greedy bastard any of our public representatives might be, nobody to be called a moron, and in most cases insulting people does nothing but anger them and cause them to ignore anything else you say.
If you really want Senator Hatch (or whoever) to change the way they think about an issue, your best bet is to present a well-reasoned argument that gradually sways their opinion. If, however, you just want to vent, well I'd recommend just doing that on
I think a more respectful, mature tone might have better results:
Dear Senator Hatch,
I am writing in response to your comments today in support of allowing large corporations to destroy the property of individuals based on suspicion of trading in copyrighted works with any judicial oversight or review. I feel the need to remind you that we still have a justice system in this country that is already in place to handle infringement cases after proof is given. This justice system has even been slanted to give more power to companies and individuals based on the amount of money they can bring to the effort. I don't think allowing huge corporations to bypass even the decidedly un-level playing field of the court system is in the best interests of the people of the State of Utah or the United States of America. This would be akin to allowing Best Buy or Sears to imprison suspected shoplifters without trial or recourse. This cannot have been your intention.
Admittedly, I trust the media even less than I do large corporations so I am looking forward to a statement correcting your stance being available in the future.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
Interesting you should use Sony as an example. In their last fiscal year they had some interesting results...
Profits of about $1billion (yes, that's a 'b') on sales of about $62billion, total. Which looks a lot more interesting when you break it down by division...
Sony Pictures showed operating income of $492million on sales of $6billion.
Sony Music showed an operating loss of $73million on sales of $5billion.
Sony Videogames showed an operating income of $942million on sales of $8billion.
Sony Electronics showed an operating income of $345million on sales of $41billion.
Sony is doing everything they can to stop IP piracy to protect their movie and entertainment divisions, because that's the best way they have to make money. They have to work a *lot* harder in their electronics division (8 times the sales) to make 2/3 the operating income of the movie division. 5 times more sales in electronics than in videogames, and they made 1/3 the income.
The profit margins in consumer electronics suck. The profit margins in movies/entertainment are great. They are making a conscious rational decision about how best to protect their profits.
Sales don't matter. Income and profits matter.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
I've always wondered why it is legal for a company to contribute towards a campaign. What else can it be construed as except a bribe for better business conditions?
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
I read with some dismay Senator Hatch's comments on copyright. Please remind him at the next opportunity of the text of the 8th clause of the constitution:
"The Congress shall have the power.... 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"
There is a critical point here, carefully obfuscated by the RIAA and it's minions - there is no such thing as "Intellectual Property."
There is a concept in law called a "Natural Right," and it is generally accepted that people have a natural right to propriety. But as Jefferson was explicitly clear on, there is no natural right to "own" an idea:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea..."
Copyright does not protect property, it is not about protecting property; it is about promoting science and the useful arts. Copyright is not a property right; it is a temporary monopoly. Violating copyright is not theft, it is not piracy; it is guerilla anti-trust.
This distinction is quite clear in the constitutional grant of exclusive right, that such grant would not be obviously self-justified as it would be for property, but that such right is justified only in as much as it fulfills the noble social good of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts."
Larry Lessig's recent supreme court challenge to the CTEA hinged on the second phrase's "limited time." He argued unsuccessfully that the extensions provided by CTEA violated the phrase by establishing essentially perpetual copyright. The court asked if 120 years was not a finite time, and turned the claim down.
It would seem that a more powerful case would be made by asking if the CTEA, DMCA, NET, etc. fulfill the constitutionally required purpose: "to promote science and the useful arts."
Today fear of over-broad laws wielded by greedy institutions has a broad chilling effect on innovation: science and the useful arts. If found thus by the court, such laws would be unconstitutional.
Thomas Jefferson was quite clear on his views of copyright and these views are enshrined in the 8th clause. It is a grant of an "embarrassing monopoly" and not a right; explicitly the fugitive fermentations of a mind cannot be owned.
Senator Hatch needs to hear and understand his words:
"It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessen
So my copyrighted material may have the same file name as a popular song. But my material is me reasing a poem I wrote, and it is in MP3 format. If anyone from the RIAA attempts to download this song, I am legally entitled to destroy their computer for infringing on my copyright.
So go ahead, fuckwits, I triple-dog-dare you to pass a law that makes activities like this legal.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
What happens when they wipe out computers belonging to traders at the New York Stock Exchange? Investment bankers? White House? Congress itself? Department of Defense? *AA major label computers? The WETA renderfarm? What makes anyone think that the damage will be limited to the USA?
Everybody who voted to legalize black-hat bullshit is going to be in seriously deep shit. Guess who they are going to try to unload the blame on? Guess what the Congressional hearings investigating the *AA members and the *AAs themselves will look like?
No matter how good immunity provisions are protecting *AA and its scr1pt k1dd13z, the best legal minds in America will be working 24/7 to figure out how to bypass the provisions to make it possible to file both civil suits and criminal charges against corporations and individually against corporate officers... and these corporate officers won't be going to country-club prisons. They're going into cells along with people named "Bubba". Perhaps they can be found in violation of RICO and the Patriot Act. While the PATRIOT Act is an abomination, something tells me that if the *AA label CEOs suddenly find themselves in Guantanamo Bay, even their own attorneys won't be lifting a finger to defend them. If they have any sense, they'll be looking for places they can't be legally extradited from.
A recent estimate says that there are 43,000,000 file traders. Even if they miraculously only limit the damage to the "guilty", some of those machines are going to be critical to somebody bigger than the *AA organizations, their member labels, or their owners.
So they ratfuck only 10,000,000 computers, some "innocent", some loaded with MP3s ripped by the legal owners of the CDs, some with MP3s of non-*AA content? The aggregate value of the data is going to be far above the current net worth of the labels combined. I don't actually expect damage to be this bad, I think any netblock RIAA black hats work out of will be disconnected by their upstream providers *quickly*.
It's time for the major players in the *AA organizations to go down.
They want to commit suicide? Encourage them..
And look to your firewalls and IDS.
Tech Public Policy stuff