Trusted Computing/DMCA vs. Diebold Pentagon Paper

The Importance of writes "Diebold's ill-fated e-voting machines have gotten a lot of coverage recently. Of particular interest is the fact that some of the most damning documents are legal memos leaked from Diebold's law firm, Jones Day. The memos were leaked to the Oakland Tribune. Now Diebold's lawyers are trying to suppress their publication. The judge has ordered the documents returned, except for those already published on the internet. Hopefully, the First Amendment will protect the newspaper's rights to hold onto the documents. However, EFF's Jason Schultz points out a very real and very scary scenario in which trusted computing combined with the DMCA makes such leaks illegal, regardless of the First Amendment."

Comments

This is just not good

[The Analog Kid]

Now the government is going to allow suppression of freedom of speach, this is not good. America is becoming another Soviet Union, something they were actually trying to avoid. I am seeing a revolution sometime in the near future, it's going to happen, I just know it.

Re:This is just not good

[FrYGuY101]

Nope. They've already been published on the internet, which means that Diebold can try all they like, but odds are since the document has been published,, can be republished.

Worst case scenario, they can't publish the report verbatim, but they can summarize it. Mark my words.

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

I am seeing a revolution sometime in the near future, it's going to happen, I just know it.

Now you've done it! Prepare for Ashcroft to land a black helicopter in your lawn ...

Re:This is just not good

[S.Lemmon]

Actually, using the DMCA to suppress this kind of information might, in a round-about way, be a good thing. It would make for an idea court case to have the DMCA's constitutionality challenged.

Re:This is just not good

[The Analog Kid]

To tell you the truth, I've always thought about something like that when I post something like that, that I'll be put on the terrorist list by the government for speaking of it. I suppose though if I did get hauled in, it would cause enough unrest in the country to be the spark which ignites the flame.

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

the terrorist list?
get real.
you know they do have more than one list.
shocking but its true, terrorism is not everything.

Re:This is just not good

[Maserati]

Agreed. We've been waiting for a really good DMCA test case. One where it's being used against a newspaper is propbably the best possible test case.

Re:This is just not good

[Brandybuck]

While the US is on the road towards totalitarianism, it is hardly alone, or even leading the pack!

Re:This is just not good

[Eccles]

Now the government is going to allow suppression of freedom of speach, this is not good.

Oh c'mon, the U.S. government? That'll never happen.

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

I've thought the same thing more than once lately.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell it to Bush.

Re:This is just not good

[sexninja]

I am seeing a revolution sometime in the near future, it's going to happen, I just know it. and so does Jon Titor! :O

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeBSD: Open Source without that fishy smell

Is the roadkill smell really any better though?

Re:This is just not good

[KingOfBLASH]

The whole problem with this is selective enforcement. A law can be used by those in power only when they know it has the least chance of being overturned -- i.e. against a 12 year old sharing music over a P2P network.

Re:This is just not good

[Draknor]

'Tis a noble thought.

Of course, not very realistic at all. There might be some outcry on /. or other tech-sites, but the spin that the mass-media public hears (assuming it hears anything at all, which is a big assumption) is that you were just another computer hacker-terrorist making threats & advocating "evil things on the interweb".

That is what is so scary about the Bush administration and the issue in general - in a perfect world, people would be fully informed. But in this significantly-less-than-perfect world, the public is kept in the dark, deprived of factual knowledge and fed whatever lies or spin people in power (governments, corporations) decide. It's not total control, but it works well enough for the majority of the people that it takes mountains moving before John Q Public hears and seriously considers alternate viewpoints.

Re:This is just not good

[SpaceLifeForm]

I believe that not *all* of the documents have been published.

The Oakland Tribune could just *leak* them again to another paper.

I hope they have not complied with the court order, it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

Except the case isn't just about freedom of speech, it's about the confidential nature of the lawyer-client relationship. To illustrate, let me pose a hypothetical.

You're the accused in a high-profile case on some new, egregious law, a la the DMCA or PATRIOT Act. You're not certain about whether you're guilty or not given the novelty of the provision under which you're charged, so you seek legal advice, making full and frank disclosure of what you've done so your lawyer can give you the best advice possible. Somewhere along the way a "concerned citizen" gets ahold of the memos generated in the course of obtaining this advice and passes it to the prosecution, or, better yet, the press, who throw it into the public domain so it loses its quality of confidentiality.

Now, who's rights should prevail here? Your right to skilled legal representation and the necessary adjunct right of lawyer-client confidentiality, or freedom of speech? Granted, Diebold is a corporation and nobody's liberty is at stake, but Diebold is a vessel for the economic interests of its shareholders, so property (another important right) is at stake and ought to be protected, no?

Re:This is just not good

[FrYGuY101]

Correct...

But I doubt they'd leak it to another paper. I mean, it's completely infeasible that they would photocopy them before returning them, and leave them just lying around on a desk when another paper's reporter was there interviewing people for a story on the topic... (You writing this down, Oakland Tribune? Plausible deniability... it's a good thing!)

Re:This is just not good

[triclipse]

A. They did release the photos.
B. The photos were not of Iraqi war dead. They were of the Columbia space shuttle astronauts.

Re:This is just not good

[AlphaWolf_HK]

You're right, I think the shit has finally hit the fan so far as the DMCA is concerned.

Re:This is just not good

[ckathens]

It's possible the newspaper could try to sue for some sort of declaratory judgment. They may not have standing to sue if DieBold doesn't sue them however....

Re:This is just not good

[Ironica]

A. They did release the photos.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Not of their own initiative, and against their internal policies.

B. The photos were not of Iraqi war dead. They were of the Columbia space shuttle astronauts.

*Some of* the photos were, apparently a lot of them. But not all. (According to your source, anyway.)

And the photo that got a woman fired from her job as a military contractor in Kuwait was definitely of Iraqi war dead.

Re:This is just not good

[agrippa_cash]

I think you already see they key differences. Perhaps (almost certainly) these documents shouldn't be admissible in a trial. However, there is an matter of the public welfare to consider here. There is no public good that could come of people knowing my dirty secrets, but it is very much in the public's interest for citizens to know exactly what hands we're placing our votes* in. *By voteS I meant those of the citizenry. I have never voted twice in an election (though that may change with these machines.)

Re:This is just not good

[spiritraveller]

Now, who's rights should prevail here? Your right to skilled legal representation and the necessary adjunct right of lawyer-client confidentiality, or freedom of speech?

This is all the fault of the defendant and his lawyers.

The whole point of there being an attorney-client privilege is that both the attorney and the client have to keep the information private.

Apparently, someone at Jones Day has committed malpractice. That is not the newspaper's fault. It is Jones Day's fault, and it is Diebold's fault for hiring Jones Day.

If a newspaper can publish the name of a rape victim which it obtains through legal means, I fail to see why it should not be allowed to print information about Diebold.

In my opinion, Diebold's activities are of far more interest to the public than the name of a rape victim.

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

So you (most people on /., I mean) are against stuff like the Patriot act and other things that infringe on your privacy, but you're in favour of violating client-attorney privilege?

So if I go snooping through random houses but find something incriminating (let's say a lot of downloaded music... don't know why I chose that one!) it's justified?

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that liberty is quite at stake, both for Diebold and for people using their voting system. And I'd like to see how property rights trump individuals or a society's. Practical upshot: the 14th could suddenly become important in unexpected ways.

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

There is no public good that could come of people knowing my dirty secrets, but it is very much in the public's interest for citizens to know exactly what hands we're placing our votes* in.

That seems to be a nice example of the general position, "I trust myself implicitly so I don't need oversight, but you, sir, are another matter". Your point on public interest is taken, but public interest is a very slippery concept, especially when you're using it to try and define the scope of important basic rights. Does the public interest allow for legal professional privilege to be restricted in cases of treason or similarly serious crimes? Does anybody who has dealings with the government lose their right to legal professional privilege, or only those who are involved in important government functions. If the latter, precisely how important is "important", and should the privilege be lost or only restricted in some way?

It's a question that judges don't like dealing with precisely because of its subjectivity. Of course, there are limits to lawyer-client privilege and confidentiality, such as when a person obtains advice to deliberately facilitate an illegal activity. However the focus should ultimately be on government, which is ultimately the party responsible for making its own processes (electoral or otherwise) open and accountable. Transferring that burden onto others by eroding their basic rights, even if they are in our opinion Bad People, is somewhat dangerous.

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

The decision you referred to is a somewhat faulty analogy: recieving information you know to have been obtained by breach of confidence or you know is being given to you in breach of confidence is different from picking up a report on display in a room which essentially anyone can access. In any event, the statute forbidding the publication of sexual assault victims' identity under any circumstances was shot down because it was far too broad, and couldn't cover situations where the newspaper came by information lawfully (access to the report containing the victim's name was not restricted in any way). The court cannot simply rewrite an offending provision according to whatever feels right to the judicial gut, it can only uphold it or declare it void. There are occasions where reading down or severance of one part of a law is allowed, but (IIRC) in the case of reading down the non-offending interpretation must be acceptable in the light of the intention conveyed by the words of the statute, and in the case of severance (again IIRC) the part of the law to be struck out must be clearly separable from the part to be upheld.

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what is so scary about the Bush administration and the issue in general...

Yes, those dirty Republicans and their disinformation, what will they invent next? Maybe the internet?

Re:This is just not good

[zurab]

Except the case isn't just about freedom of speech, it's about the confidential nature of the lawyer-client relationship.

Except that the linked article is not about the attorney-client privilege. That's a separate right that exists with or without DMCA, and applies to the government. IANAL, but I believe any evidence obtained by prosecution that violates attorney-client privilege will not be admissible in court.

The linked article, however, discusses something else. This does not only apply to lawyers' documents but leaked Diebold documents and e-mails as well. For example, with the DMCA and "trusted computing," decrypting the leaked documents from Diebold by anyone else who is not "authorized" would violate the DMCA. Thereby, Diebold (or any other entity) would be able to control others' speech by swinging the DMCA around. Good example is whislteblowing which would be illegal with encrypted documents.

Re:This is just not good

[macdaddy357]

They should anonymously send them to every website and newspaper they can think of, including, but certainly not limited to the memory hole, and internalmemos.com.

Re:This is just not good

[Peaceful_Patriot]

This is the true purpose for the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, The People's Right to Bear Arms. The day may come when you will have to choose sides.

And then there's the frightening possiblility of a world-wide revolution against the US.

Anyone but Bush in '04!

Re:This is just not good

[red floyd]

That's the Second. The Fourth is the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

The fact that Jason Schultz (or you) want to talk about copyright does not change the facts of the case or the applicable law. The documents in issue are privileged and confidential, and the parent post to which I originally replied did not make any express point about the DMCA, but rather a vague, general point about freedom of speech.

Re:This is just not good

[spiritraveller]

It's a perfectly appropriate and applicable case. The newspaper in this case DID receive the information lawfully.

Do a google for "bob novak" and "valerie plame" if you want some examples of a journalist receiving information that was provided to him illegally. The provider of the information broke the law (much like the leak at Jones Day). But Mr. Novak did not break the law in receiving the information... he merely listened. The press has no obligation to shut its eyes or hang up the phone merely because it knows that the person communicating with it has broken the law.

The fact that the informant broke the law does not follow the information in order to somehow make the newspaper guilty.

Re:This is just not good

[iwadasn]

Answer is simple. Corporations are not people. The rights of people should always trump the rights of corporations, end of story. Unfortunately, with the republicans in office, the exact opposite is true. For instance, think about all the router manufacturers (and others) who are illegally distributing GPLed software. Under the current (anti music sharing) laws, that comes to 1/4 million dollars and 5 years in prison per offense, multiply that by a million or so, and we're talking a trillion dollars give or take, and at least 50 years per employee.....

Now, why have none of these cases ever gone to court? Oh, that's right, because corporations aren't subject to the laws of the land like mere pople are. Sorry, my bad.....

Re:This is just not good

[minus_273]

but everyone thought the revolution would be in 1970. The Us just lost to the communists in vietnam, soviets winning the arms race and domestic unrest... i wonder what happened.
keep in mind that the "angry at the US" people are a very small subset of the population. The rest are just democrats. if kerry is elected, the other party will be the angry one and so forth...

Re:This is just not good

[dawg ball]

That is what is so scary about the Bush administration...

The scariest thing about Bush administration is actually George Bush himself.

Re:This is just not good

[killjoe]

Hows that rigorous investigation going by the way.

Re:This is just not good

[darien]

And then there's the frightening possiblility of a world-wide revolution against the US.

I suspect that won't be a violent revolution, just a gradual turning of backs. I'm British, and before Bush came to power it was a common argument - you'd often see it in newspapers etc. - that we should resist further integration into the EU because it would damage our relationship with the US. You very rarely hear that argument any more.

Re:This is just not good

[Leon Yendor]

Yep! Welcome to th' Benighted States 'f Murrica:
the Land of the Blasé and the Home of the (once)Free.

A country gets the government it deserves and, sadly, it seems we are all in the same thrall...

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody could engineer it though.

1) Set up a company.

2) Produce some documents relating to a DRM/Trusted computing initiative, or something similar

3) Leak these documents to a newspaper.

4) Sue the newspaper under the DMCA, but in a way that very clearly shows a Freedom of Speech issue.

5) Allow the case to go to the Supreme Court.

6) Get at least parts of the DMCA overturned as unconstituational.

7) Profit !

Re:This is just not good

[KarmaMB84]

Actually, a peace treaty was signed on January 27, 1973 regarding Vietnam. American soldiers left by March 29 and North Vietnam broke the treaty and attacked the already collapsing South Vietnam in 1975. The much spoken of helicopter retreat of US forces was just an evacuation of Vietnamese from the Pittman Apartments. The solders were gone and had not retreating to do.

The Soviets brought themselves to collapse trying to repair an economy and governmental system destroyed by the arms race. I hardly call that winning the arms race.

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say this, but it's also a perfect time to write your congressmen. I've heard people who voted for DMCA complaining about how it's being used (preventing fair use). If they heard it was being used to prevent free speech by a newspaper, they will vote for the next act that cuts back the DMCA.

Re:This is just not good

[0x0d0a]

However, there is an matter of the public welfare to consider here. There is no public good that could come of people knowing my dirty secrets, but it is very much in the public's interest for citizens to know exactly what hands we're placing our votes* in.

The thing is, if that's the case then this should explicitly be made all right -- that "documents relating to voting are public, and that this obligation overrides all confidentiality guarantees", for instance.

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

that's fucking stupid, saying that it's wrong to spread HONORABLE photos. there's no identifiable people in these pictures, it's not like they're saying "Among these people is so-and-so, 23 years old from Bumfuk, Egypt".

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of selective enforcement...

The bill of rights was not incorporated untill much after it was passed. meaning that unless it was a federal matter (back then there was not a whole lot that was federal) then you did not enjoy the rights and liberties outlined in the bill of rights. for example:
Freedom of speech 1925 Gitlow v. New York
Freedom of Press 1931 Near v. Minnesota
It is possible that these dicisions by the supreme court could be reversed. Although very unlikely, if any right to privacy which is not outlined in the BoR could very conceiveably get overturned.

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

We're all l33t hax0rs. Let them put the insecure voting systems in place, then we break in, and then, wham, it's President Taco!

T-3's for all, free cookies, etc, etc...

Re:This is just not good

[d34thm0nk3y]

To me it seems pretty cut and dry actually. The person that leaked the memos did something wrong. The newspaper that repoted them did nothing wrong. As we slashdotters like to say from time to time: once the cat is out of the bag you can't put it back. Why are the newspapers having the corrective burden placed upon them? If they have valuable news and they are being forced not to report it then they are suffering sanctions when those sanctions should rightfully be placed upon whoever broke the confidentiality agreement.

Re:This is just not good

[zurab]

copyright does not change the facts of the case or the applicable law. The documents in issue are privileged and confidential ...

OK, let me explain in more detail.

First, if the documents are given to the press, whether intentionally, accidentally or via a leak, they are no longer confidential. Anyway, the press is in no way responsible if the leak came from inside the lawyer's office; this happens all the time in almost all high profile cases, many times intentionally.

Second, the attorney-client privilege applies to the government tapping and recording communications between lawyers and their clients and then turning around and using those against the defendants in a court of law.

Third, the point is that with the DMCA and "trusted computing," it is the press, or whoever decrypts and publicizes the said "leaked" documents, will be violating the DMCA, the speech that has up until now been protected by the First Amendment.

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

The newspaper in this case DID receive the information lawfully.

It's true that they committed no breach of the law in receiving the information, but the law says they shouldn't have received that information, and sometimes the law imposes an obligation not to take advantage of things that shouldn't have happened. Receipt of confidential information is such a case.

Do a google for "bob novak" and "valerie plame" if you want some examples of a journalist receiving information that was provided to him illegally.

I'm familiar with the Plume scandal. The relevant difference is that nobody's recognized basic rights are being directly breached by the release of that information. It's true that the public interest in the effective operation of the intelligence services, Plume's career, and the well-being of any overseas contacts she may have worked with are at risk, but that must be balanced against the public interest that government be properly scrutinized.

In any event, there is no automatic right for the press to publish whatever they happen to find. You should read the decision in the Pentagon Papers case to get a feel for some of the considerations that have to be taken into account. I'm not an American, but IMNSHO what Novak did by publishing was wrong and quite possibly treasonous, especially since it appears he was acting as a tool of oppression rather than an independent journalist.

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

The person that leaked the memos did something wrong. The newspaper that repoted them did nothing wrong.

So if someone breaks into your house (unlawfully), arranges to take photos of you in a compromising position (unlawfully), and a journalist is invited to view these photos on the burglar's own premises and equipment (lawfully) and copy them for publication (lawfully with the burglar's licence) then that's alright? See my other post for a refutation of this point.

As we slashdotters like to say from time to time: once the cat is out of the bag you can't put it back.

Which is why the newspaper has not been enjoined with respect to those documents already in the public domain, only those that are as yet unpublished.

Why are the newspapers having the corrective burden placed upon them?

They're not. They haven't been ordered to pay damages or compensation, they've simply been told what they cannot do with the documents in order to prevent further infringement of Diebold's right to confidentiality in the lawyer-client relationship.

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

First, if the documents are given to the press, whether intentionally, accidentally or via a leak, they are no longer confidential.

Ah, so the fact that they're given to one person (or organization) means that they lose their confidential nature, despite the fact that none of the other six billion people on the planet know they exist. I see, it's all clear to me now. Your basic point is correct, and you will note the distinction the court made between documents already published and documents yet to be published.

this happens all the time in almost all high profile cases, many times intentionally.

And always with the client's prior knowledge and consent in the light of professional advice that this will help his or her case.

Second, the attorney-client privilege applies to the government tapping and recording communications between lawyers and their clients and then turning around and using those against the defendants in a court of law.

No. Rights are rights, and it doesn't matter whether they're infringed by the government or by private actors, the fact remains that they have been infringed. Legal professional privilege always applies, both to civil and criminal cases. It is (or should be) a substantive legal right, not just a rule of evidence.

Re:This is just not good

[d34thm0nk3y]

They're not. They haven't been ordered to pay damages or compensation, they've simply been told what they cannot do with the documents in order to prevent further infringement of Diebold's right to confidentiality in the lawyer-client relationship.

As I said before, by not publishing news that has value they are suffering damages and a potential loss of revenue.

So if someone breaks into your house (unlawfully), arranges to take photos of you in a compromising position (unlawfully), and a journalist is invited to view these photos on the burglar's own premises and equipment (lawfully) and copy them for publication (lawfully with the burglar's licence) then that's alright?

Let me offer my own convoluted analogy: Important information regarding the very future of the democracy we all hold so dear is released to the press, whose duties are to disseminate important information. Press performs said duties. Instead of refuting the evidence the practitioner of said information calls in the lawyers to cover the evidence up. Oh wait, that is ACTUALLY what happened.

The whistle blower performs a valuable service in our morally questionable society. I think anything that limits this service is a VERY bad idea.

Re:This is just not good

[spiritraveller]

It's true that they committed no breach of the law in receiving the information, but the law says they shouldn't have received that information, and sometimes the law imposes an obligation not to take advantage of things that shouldn't have happened. Receipt of confidential information is such a case.

Not in the United States it isn't. If your lawyer even inadvertently releases privileged information, you lose the privilege. That is a basic rule of evidence here.

In other words, you cannot even have a judge exclude the evidence from your trial... much less have him issue an injunction against someone who isn't even a party in the case.

In any event, there is no automatic right for the press to publish whatever they happen to find. You should read the decision in the Pentagon Papers case to get a feel for some of the considerations that have to be taken into account.

New York Times v. United States (aka the Pentagon Papers case) held that the New York Times and Washington Post could not be enjoined from publishing confidential information. That's all it held, since the majority could not agree on a standard.

I quote from Justice Black's opinion, as he was one of the majority, "The history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints."

Justice Douglas, "[The First Amendment] leaves no room for governmental restraint on the press."

Justice Brennan, "[T]here is a single, extremely narrow class of cases in which the First Amendment's ban on prior judicial restraint may be overridden. . . [S]uch cases may arise only when the nation 'is at war.'"

Justice Stewart, "I cannot say that disclosure of any of [the documents] will surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people. . . I join the judgments of the Court."

Justice White placed emphasis on the fact that the case involved a prior restraint, against which the First Amendment provides especially strong protections. He stated that had it been a case of subsequent criminal punishment, he might have gone the other way, depending on the gravity of the national security interests involved.

Those are the five justices who made up the majority for that decision. Nothing in their opinions indicates that a prior judicial restraint could be validly applied against the press in anything but the most dangerous of circumstances, if ever.

Now, Justice Harlan does give a nice long list of factors that he would have prefered the court to have addressed. But Justice Harlan was one of the dissenters, NOT part of the majority, and his opinion is therefore not the law.

I recently briefed this case for one of my classes, but it's really not even applicable to the situation, as it deals with national security. An area where the government has MORE, not less power to abridge First Amendment rights.

Whatever rights the state of California provides (regarding attorney-client privilege), those rights are superceded by the First Amendment of the United States. Federal law--especially Federal constitutional law--is supreme over state law.

I'm not an American, but IMNSHO what Novak did by publishing was wrong and quite possibly treasonous, especially since it appears he was acting as a tool of oppression rather than an independent journalist.

Novak is an example of what the press is allowed to get away with in this country... I didn't think it was right for him to do that either... but our opinions are not always consistent with the law.

Re:This is just not good

[drunkenbatman]

But in this significantly-less-than-perfect world, the public is kept in the dark, deprived of factual knowledge and fed whatever lies or spin people in power (governments, corporations) decide.

Um, I'm pretty sure that for someone to be deprived of something, they've have to want/seek it out in the first place and then be blocked from having it. IE, I'm not being deprived of syphillis.

You might really not like Bush/other party politician but... honestly, I think holding them responsible for not being able to forcefully beam your "message/idea of right" into the public's head is a bit of stretch, isn't it?

Re:This is just not good

[Draknor]

Fair enough - so, we actually have 2 problems. The government & large corporations attempt to hide, distort, or outright lie, and the bulk of the public is too apathetic to seek the truth and apply critical thinking.

And for what its worth, while I do think (based on materials I've read and my own perceptions) that the Bush administration is one of the more secretive administrations we've had (at least in the last couple decades), I certainly do not think the Democrats are significantly better. Overall, I believe the government needs a much larger area of transparency so that voters can make intelligent, informed decisions based upon their personal philosophies. Assuming, of course (like you implied), that they actually want to do so.

Re:This is just not good

[drunkenbatman]

Overall, I believe the government needs a much larger area of transparency so that voters can make intelligent, informed decisions based upon their personal philosophies.

*shivers* the parties are so close now (when you look at just what Kerry disagrees on with Bush it's just not that severe), but I think you're going to hit a problem with what you're after... which is that it's already surprisingly transparent, it's just so f'scking big and convoluted, but emphasis on the big. Almost (if not a hair over) 300 million people, with a government that, even with Bush's 4% discretionary spending, is going to keep getting larger & larger. There's only so much reporters can cover, only so much free time for your average 80hr/week 3 kids dual-income family to spend digesting news, etc. Much easier to draw your battle lines and go with it until something really drastic happens.

We need the government to declare emininent domain and purchase google and create GoogleGov.com, with pre-defined searches for various topics and issues. :)

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

The position on inadvertent loss of privilege is different in Australia (where I come from). Although privilege can be deliberately waived, privilege may be preserved where privileged information is mistakenly released (usually in the form of mistaken discovery of privileged documents in civil proceedings). This must be distinguished from the case where documents fall into the hands of a third party, although equity may intercede according to the circumstances of the case. In all cases privilege must be considered separately to the equitable duty of confidence. I have heard it said that Australia and England are much stronger equity jurisdictions than the United States, so perhaps that explains why Anglo-Australian courts are happier granting injunctions in these cases.

Needless to say, this creates all sorts of fun ethical problems for solicitors (and sometimes barristers) who are tainted after having read material that shouldn't have been discovered.

See Calcraft v Guest [1898] 1 QB 759 and ITC Film Distributors v Video Exchange Limited [1982] Ch 431 for some of the prinicples of equity involved. See Hooker v Darling Harbour Authority (1987) 9 NSWR 538 and Kabwand Pty Ltd & Ors v National Australia Bank Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 85 for the basic principles on imputed waiver for inadvertently released information.

With regard to New York Times v US, I would not be so eager to hold out a 5-4 decision as conclusive authority for a given point, especially given the more relaxed attitude higher courts have towards stare decisis in modern times. And although the First Amendment supercedes state and Federal law, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to the assistance of counsel in a criminal trial. As I would consider privilege an important adjunct to that right, and given the equal status the Sixth Amendment enjoys with the First, is it certain that professional privilege doesn't also enjoy an elevated status, at least in criminal matters?

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

The problem is that the press tends to interpret its duty in accordance with its own financial interest (what will rate or sell newspapers) rather than in accordance with the relevance and importance of the story or information in the public affairs of the nation. The interest of the public is not the same as the public interest.

Now, the injunction that has been granted is just an interim or interlocutory order, which is a temporary order designed to preserve the status quo until the matter can be finally determined at trial. It may be that after careful determination of all the issues the court will find that the public interest obviates the confidential nature of the documents and the order will be lifted. On the other hand, Diebold's right to confidence and privacy of counsel may prevail. By making the order, the judge is simply saying that there is a serious matter to be tried and that Diebold is in jeopardy of irreparable harm should the newspaper be allowed to publish the undisclosed documents.

Your position is that the court should not be permitted to inquire about the matter at all. Since a legal right only exists if it is backed by the power to enforce it, you would, by ousting the jurisdiction of the court to look behind the circumstances and reasons for detection and publication of the information, completely destroy any right to confidentiality or privacy.

Re:This is just not good

[Eccles]

Feh.

It isn't dead bodies, or even identifiable coffins, they're banning tasteful, respectful pictures of flag-draped coffins. Why? 'Cause evidence of the dead might stir up opposition to administration policies.

Re:This is just not good

[timts]

there's been suppression for years and years. I wonder who hired this company and if there's any corruption involved which wasted our tax!

Re:This is just not good

[spiritraveller]

With regard to New York Times v US, I would not be so eager to hold out a 5-4 decision as conclusive authority for a given point, especially given the more relaxed attitude higher courts have towards stare decisis in modern times. And although the First Amendment supercedes state and Federal law, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to the assistance of counsel in a criminal trial. As I would consider privilege an important adjunct to that right, and given the equal status the Sixth Amendment enjoys with the First, is it certain that professional privilege doesn't also enjoy an elevated status, at least in criminal matters?

It does enjoy an elevated status, but when your lawyer waives the privilege... you've got a malpractice claim. Privilege is very important. But it's easy to waive.

The general rule is that disclosure to any third party destroys the privilege. The attorney can maintain the privilege while allowing nonattorneys to handle documents if those nonattorneys are necessary to get the work done. But those nonattorneys carry the same duty as the attorney. If they release the information, the privilege is gone.

I didn't mean to imply that the Pentagon Papers case is conclusive at all. On the contrary, the nature of that case is that it provides no standard for the lower courts to follow, since the majority could not agree on one.

Yes, the First and Sixth Amendments are coequal, but when they conflict, they must be balanced. Rather than prevent the press from publishing information that it has legally acquired, the Supreme Court usually looks at alternative methods of preserving the defendant's rights, such as voir dire. According to the Supreme Court, it's good enough if you get 12 jurors to say that they will examine the case with an open mind.

Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart is a good case that deals with the balancing of a criminal defendant's rights and the freedom of the press. It doesn't deal specifically with attorney-client privilege.

Since I haven't read the order, I don't know on what basis the judge in this case made her decision. But I suppose another way of looking at it could be as an assertion of a property right. Jones Day might be arguing that since they own the documents, the newspaper has no right to do anything with them, and must simply return them. It seems to me that that sort of reasoning would not run afoul of the First Amendment.

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

Since I haven't read the order, I don't know on what basis the judge in this case made her decision.

I can't speak to the constitutional aspects of the property argument, though it seems to be otherwise sound. But since the original article was published on Tuesday the 20th, and the article reporting the decision was published on the 22nd (referring to a hearing on "Tuesday evening"), I assume the order was only an interim order made without a detailed examination of the merits.

Regardless?

[rossz]

WTF? When can anything be done regardless of the Constutition? I'll tell you: legally, NOT EVER. The Constitution trumps anything Congress might try to do. The Constitution is the guidelines by which Congress is able to pass laws. To quote the Supreme Court (sorry, I don't have the exact citation): "Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void."

Re:Regardless?

[aussersterne]

When can anything be done regardless of the Constutition?

Anytime. Or more specifically, whenever the Supreme Court says they can and law enforcement, guns and all (beginning with the Justice Dept.), sides with government. Who appoints justices and cabinet-level law enforcement? The President.

This is why presidential elections matter, even though it's supposedly congress that makes laws... the existence of checks and balances is not foreordained by the nature of the universe; it depends on a populace who votes carefully to keep these checks and balances in place and to keep the power-hungry or purchasable out of office.

Re:Regardless?

[Dr Reducto]

WTF? When can anything be done regardless of the Constutition? I'll tell you: legally, NOT EVER. The Constitution trumps anything Congress might try to do. The Constitution is the guidelines by which Congress is able to pass laws. To quote the Supreme Court (sorry, I don't have the exact citation): "Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void."

That is of course, assuming people challenge it in court, and the courts have a sense of justice and haven't sold out. Maybe when the people realize what has happened to them, they will demand their rights, and feel free to use armed revolution if necessary. Unfortunately, the apathy of the average American (spoken as a young American who is disenchanted by the rights we have lost so far, and the rights we will come to liose) makes me fear the future.

Re:Regardless?

[Anonymous Coward]

to keep the power-hungry or purchasable out of office.

Will you keep the former point in mind when Hillary Clinton runs for President in 2008?

Re:Regardless?

[aussersterne]

My suggestion is to try to avoid voting Democrat or Republican. So long as people vote one of these two major parties, they simply reify and reinforce the tendency that both of them have developed (after years of playing as exclusive competitors to one another) to take whatever money is on the table in order to out-leverage and out-spend the other to get into or stay in office.

Re:Regardless?

[DrLZRDMN]

Your new to America arent you?

Re:Regardless?

[koi88]

In theory, you might be right.
However, this government has so far succeeded in convincing people that the "security" of the nation is more important than the rights of the individual, let alone international treaties.
Okay, so I'm liberal, if this is a dirty word for so many people then something is completely wrong in this state.
Somebody please tell Bush that "liberty" comes from "liberal".
You can't trust this government to protect any liberties.

Re:Regardless?

[DrLZRDMN]

no don't if you do he'll freak out and take away all liberties

Re:Regardless?

[Anonymous Coward]

The people cannot be convinced against their will. So, if your statement is true, then either they are mindless dolts, or they love security more than freedom. It used to be that we taught our children the famous words "give me liberty, or give me death!" But now it seems that the rallying cry is "give me my entitlements or be kicked out of office."

Re:Regardless?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eldred?

The SC has ruled time and time again that when copyright and the 1st Amendment come into conflict that copyright wins. Their opinion is that Art 1 Sec 8 Cls 8 of the Consituion overrules the 1st Amend of the Constitution.

Since copyright attachs on creation, everything the law firm did was copyrighted.

Re:Regardless?

[taped2thedesk]

That is of course, assuming people challenge it in court

Yep. And assuming that someone is so passionate about our RIGHTS that they have the balls to disobey the DMCA so that it can be challenged.

Until someone stops complaining about it and gets it to the Supreme Court, nothing is going to change. So the question is, is anyone ready to take the leap? I'm hoping that the Tribune goes and publishes anyway. Someone needs to take this risk, maybe it will be them.

I'm know I'd buy a subscription if they went through with it - probably not of much consequence to them if they lose the case, of course.

Here's to the digital millenium.

Re:Regardless?

[rossz]

Hardly. In fact, I've been here long enough to know the difference between "your" and "you're".

Re:Regardless?

[triclipse]

But don't believe for a second that the liberal end of the court will be more protective of your rights. One need only read Kyllo v. United States to recognize that Scalia and Thomas are two of the strongest defenders of liberty on the court. The same can be said for free speech.

Re:Regardless?

[dnoyeb]

I won't be voting for either. I hear many people get frightened into voting democrat because they fear

A. Bush will stay in office if they do not vote Democrat.
b. Their vote does not count unless they vote democrat or republican.

I refuse to give into fear-mongering.

Re:Regardless?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what the real problem is, these congressmen who try to make careers of their jobs, it shouldn't happen, and those career congressman are usually corrupted by corporations because they last awhile, like Orin Hatch for example. Stop voting in the same people over and over.

Re:Regardless?

[LostCluster]

Unfortunately, that's not quite the way our system is designed.

It's nearly impossible for somebody who is not affiliated with an established political party to win White House. Simply put, our electoral system requires that the most powerful single-person role in or system have more backing than can be obtained in just one race alone.

See, in order to win the Electoral College vote, a canadate needs a whole lot more than just a plurality of the popular vote. A majority of the Electoral College votes must be captured, and that means one must win a plurality in several states. Having an evenly distributed 5% of the vote will register as a 0 under this scoring system. You'll need to distact at least 40% of the vote, and you'll need to do that in multiple states. Not just more than both the Democratic and Republican candidate, but you'll need to get a majority of the Electoral College "points" to secure a victory.

No non-party candiate has much of a hope of ever pulling that feat. At best, in a 3-man race, the most likely outcome will be a roughly-even split, something along the lines of 38%, 32%, 30%. That kicks our electoral system into overtime...

In such a situation that no ticket gets a majority of the Electoral College, the presidential race kicks to the House Of Representives... in a one-state, one-vote configuration determined by the representives of that state. In short, it'll end up being a party-lines vote going to the side that has a majority in the House.

Anybody who hopes to be president without the Democrats or the Republican Party's help must start their own party, and establish it by winning House seats one-by-one first. They don't need to take a majority control of the congress, they goal is to control a majority of the delegation to the House of at least 20, perferably 26 of 50 states. That way, their candidate needs only win a small number of states to win the election.

Ralph Nader's reputation is to be a "challenge the system" kind of guy, but the electoral system is entrenched in the Constitution and it's going to take an amendment to get it out. It doesn't mandate that we have a 2-party system, but it more or less prevents one individual from taking over the executive branch single-handedly.

A third party should seek a firm control of lower offices before trying to reach for the big one. One Representive it all it takes to filibuster the House, which is almost as effective as a presidential veto.

Re:Regardless?

[Ironica]

The SC has ruled time and time again that when copyright and the 1st Amendment come into conflict that copyright wins. Their opinion is that Art 1 Sec 8 Cls 8 of the Consituion overrules the 1st Amend of the Constitution.

But the legal precedents for freedom of speech are not the same as those for freedom of the press. This is not the same kind of case as a free speech case.

Re:Regardless?

[Templaris]

Actually there are instances where the law simply just fails. Remember when Andrew Jackson was President? I believe it was the Cherokee who were trying to hold onto their valuable land. They pleaded their case to the supreme court and ended up winning. They still had to abandon their homes anyways. Why? Because the govt wouldnt enforce the courts judgement. "They've made their decision, now lets see them enforce it." - Andrew Jackson

Re:Regardless?

[NormalVisual]

One Representive it all it takes to filibuster the House, which is almost as effective as a presidential veto.

Um, filibusters are unique to the Senate.

Re:Regardless?

[LostCluster]

good catch... that was a mistake.

Re:Regardless?

[localman]

My suggestion is to try to avoid voting Democrat or Republican.

That was my theory until I understood the fatal flaw of plurality voting. Our vote tallying system is mathematically unsound. If everyone who was smart enough to tell that the Democrats and Republicans were crooked voted independant, the president will be chosen by idiots. This is what happened last time around.

So yes: if you're smart, you'll realize that both of the major parties are corrupt. If you're even smarter, you'll realize that you still must vote for the lesser of two evils until we can change our voting system to a Instant Runoff or Borda Count or something.

Cheers.

Re:Regardless?

[technoCon]

Though we may agree about what the First Amendment means, neither of us wear the black robes of the Supremes. And the sad fact is that the words of the Constition mean exactly what the Supremes want them to mean. This situation is exactly the same as Alice in Wonderland and Humpty Dumpty when he said, "When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less."

Some decades ago, a right was found hiding in the penumbra of the emanations of the Constitution. By this means, an unelected elite subverted democratic process and a lot of laws were overturned and the political argument continues to this day.

We don't want corporate types to define "free speech" to mean exactly what they want it to mean. Any tinkering with "free speech" will have to meet with Disney's approval (and all the other publishing and broadcasting megacorporations) because they own enough free speech to apply tremendous political pressure.

Re:Regardless?

[jeti]

This only proves you're educated. Only native speakers mix up
similar sounding words. Other people tend to learn the spelling
before the pronunciation.

(Such people even know the spelling of definitely. :)

Re:Regardless?

[killjoe]

I guess it depends on where you live. If you live in a "swing state" then Bush will stay in office unless you vote democrat. If you live in a state which is overwhelmingly democrat or republican you can do whatever the fuck you want.

Check the polls in your state. If it's close and you don't like what bush is doing to this country you should vote for kerry.

Re:Regardless?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. So go ahead and make a site with Playfair, deCSS, and Kazaa Light, and see how your precious First Amendment protects you.

Re:Regardless?

[demachina]

"Maybe when the people realize what has happened to them, they will demand their rights, and feel free to use armed revolution if necessary."

You aren't going to topple the U.S. government with arms anytime soon. Nonviolence, think Ghandi is the only viable approach to defeating the monster that has taken control of America. Study Ghandi's tactics, for example his march to the sea to make salt to defy Britain's colonial tax on salt. Peaceful protests, legal but on the edge and sure to provoke an excessive response from the police state are how you defeat it. Kent State was one of the pivotal moments in turning the tide against Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger. You need to exercise your constitutional rights to free speech and assembly and not violate any laws that count, like don't hurt anyone and don't engage in stupid vandalism like Seattle. You do have to violate any arbitrary laws and ordinances thrown in your way which are designed to make peaceful protest impotent and to deprive you of your right to protest. For example you can't let them put you in fenced areas where the protest is never seen and is irrelevant. This is the dominant tool being used to suppress dissent at the moment.

When peaceful protests gain a critical mass and start informing people and turning people against the gross excesses of their current government, you can count on them overreacting, killing peaceful protesters and when they do they are doomed. Britain's massacre of hundreds of Indians so disgusted the people at home that it undermined Britain's grip on power in India.

There are groups trying to mount protests for the Democratic and Republican conventions. If you want to show your displeasure with the system that is the place to go this year. Think Chicago in 1968. The authorities in those two cities with the help of the Feds are going to do their best to create a giant wall around those conventions in the name of security and anti terrorism but that excuse will also be used to push all peaceful protests out of sight and out of mind and to completely suppress peaceful dissent.

The problem you have is there is a huge percentage of American's who love the current system, they are making a good living under it, they have expensive homes, they can afford the best schools for their children and they will consider you crazy if you suggest anything is wrong in the current system. They wont risk the well being of themselves or their family by rocking the boat. You need to think of creative ways to communicate to them there is something wrong, in particular that democracy and freedom is being stolen from under their noses, in particular by a President who is telling them he is protecting "Freedom and Democracy" 20 times in every speech when he is doing exactly the opposite. This is known as the "big lie". You make it big enough and keep repeating it, the gullible majority ends up believing it when it is the antithesis of reality and truth.

If anyone were to take up arms in the U.S. they would be slaughtered or in prison for life. The U.S. government would do exactly the same thing Saddam did to any of his people who had the audacity to challenge him, for example all the Shia's in the mass graves in Southern Iraq. George H.W. Bush encouraged them to revolt against Saddam after the first gulf war. When they did Bush the elder turned his back, didn't even give them the protection of a no fly zone so Saddam could use helicopters to slaughter them, and now George W. Bush uses those same mass graves as evidence of what a monster Saddam is, when it was his own father that precipitated an armed revolt that is going to lead to slaughter in just about any nation on the planet.

Armed revolt in the U.S. would be going up against the combined might of the FBI, the Secret Service, the ATF, the CIA, the National Gaurd and the U.S. military. They have a massive advantage in intelligence gathering, air superiority and massive arms superiority. Your only hope would be the soldiers and agents woul

Posting

[aePrime]

If my comments get moderated poorly, it's not my fault; I'm pretty sure Slashdot is using Diebold software to tally the moderations.

Re:Posting

[Anonymous Coward]

If I get modded as a troll for this, it is for the same reason.

Re:Posting

[Anonymous Coward]

I moderated you "underrated" with one account and "troll" with the other :-P Try that kind of thing in the coming elections...

Re:FP

[phreak0003]

I hate this... the US is turning into the Soviet Union

Time to re-write the Star Spangled Banner

[Anonymous Coward]

...o'er the land of the controlled...and the home of the oppressed.

DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how Democrats are up in arms about how the Bush administration stripping our rights away with the Patriot Act, when Dem-fundraising-darlings Clinton/Gore brought us the DMCA...

Fact is, whomever ends up in the White House has already sold his (or her) soul. Think of that the next time you consider whether Kerry is going to actually bring any change.

A little more on topic, why the hell hasn't the DMCA been challenged in court yet?

Re:DMCA

[The Analog Kid]

Umm...it's not Clinton's fault for the DMCA, the bill passed Congress unanimously, even if he did veto it, it would have been overturned, and it wasn't just the Democrats, it was bi-partisan legislation.

Re:DMCA

[DarkSarin]

Granted, but he could have vetoed on general principle. I would have respected that.

IF I were ever made president, I would veto EVERY peice of legislation that I didn't feel was constitutional, such as the DMCA. If congress wanted override that, then fine, but I would have let my voice be known.

Clinton didn't veto it, and didn't express displeasure. If he had, the dems in the congress would have paid close attention.

Of course, the old wifey prolly didn't want that, since it would have hurt her relations with the cronies, and killed her chances of running for congress/pres.

Re:DMCA

[user no. 590291]

IF I were ever made president, I would veto EVERY peice of legislation that I didn't feel was constitutional, such as the DMCA. If congress wanted override that, then fine, but I would have let my voice be known.

That's one reason you won't ever be president. There hasn't ever been and never will be anyone in that office who doesn't owe somebody--the DMCA was downpayment on payback for years of bribes^W campaign contributions, and is only the beginning of things to come. Expect "trusted" computing to be mandatory by 2010, to "deny terrorists and spammers access to the advanced communication networks while preserving their usefulness for law-abiding Americans."

Re:DMCA

[DarkSarin]

I know that's why I won't. I never said that I expected to become president, or would even want to be voted into that position. But that's what I would do there.

Re:DMCA

[user no. 590291]

I know--I like to think I'd do the same.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doi? I'm confused... the reason this is might not be protected under the First Amendment is because the documents might have been obtained unlawfully, right?

Re:So...

[dfn5]

That's what it sounds like to me. Maybe everyone's private medical records should be "accidentally" published on the 'net and we'll see how long people scream first amendment. No, I think people here would instead be yelling about their privacy first. Doctor-patient privilege is no different than the attorney-client privilege. IMHO, the press shouldn't be allowed to print it, and the person who leaked it should be thrown in jail.

Re:So...

[man_ls]

If a corporation was hiding information regarding its misdoings which were at best harmful to the public good but not technically illegal, and at worst amounted to downright fraud and deceit, would you care how that information was obtained?

We're talking greater good here. It is in the interest of the public to know that Diebold's voting machines are downright dangerous to the freedom and security of American elections, DMCA and other laws on information be damned.

Re:So...

[shadow_slicer]

IANAL, but I thought attorney-client priviledge was only valid in a court of law (as an extensions to the right against self-incrimination). All this means is that the prosecution can't put your lawyer on the stand, under oath and force him to either lie or betray his client.

Outside of the courtroom this means nothing. You get a POS lawyer who likes to talk to the pretty lady with the microphone and there's nothing the government can (or should IMHO) do about it -- though a lawyer that does that would probably lose his professional status (disbarred?) and not be able to be a lawyer in that state anymore.

The same thing already applies for the medical profession, and engineering.

The professionals who leak information now days face worse than a little jail time. They risk their livelyhoods, their prospects of *ever* holding a job in that field again.

I would much rather the government just delegate the responsibility to an organization (like a guild) of people with the same profession, and let them dictate what they think is right. You might be hesitant to let the very subjects of the regulation decide how they would be regulated (after all what do a few colonists know about taxation!), but such an organization could generally be expected to act in the best interest of the profession.

One problem is that some of these normal non-governmental regulatory organizations aren't functioning very efficiently. Also a lot of professions that should have professional organizations, don't. The already established organizations should be able to sort themselves out without government interference. The government should do little more than encourage the creation of professional organizations in the troubled professions.

***End Discussion***

Organizational thinking and personal self-interest.
You might ask why I can say that a professional organization would act in the best interest of the profession:
1. Human Nature: People like to believe they are moral caring individuals. If they see someone similar to them doing something they consider wrong, they like to point them out, and make an example of them, and show how "I'm not like that". This makes them feel better and represses their own insecurities about their own indiscretions.
2. Self-Interest: It is in their own best interests to trim the unfit from their ranks. This decreases the available work pool (raising $alaries), and prevents their profession from being subject to suspicion. For example, doctors are becoming even more subject to suspicion, which has caused demand for malpractice insurance, which caused costs to go up.
3. #include <subpost_pos>

Why would they not act in the best interest of the profession:
1. Good Ol Boy System: Members "helps" their friends when their friends do something wrong. everyone else out. This essentially allows everyone (for well-connected everyone) the freedom to do as they please. This is another symptom of the short-term thinking in our society. In the longterm these actions damage the profession and hurt every person in this profession.
2. #include <subpost_neg>

Re:So...

[Ironica]

Doctor-patient privilege is no different than the attorney-client privilege.

I wouldn't agree with that statement at all. Sure, they serve similar roles, and perhaps have similar importance, though I tend to think that there's even still a difference between criminal and civil matters for attorney-client privilege. Criminal is more like doctor-patient, because you're talking about liberty, which ranks right after life. Pursuit of happiness might encompass civil matters, but that's a stretch.

But they're not exactly the same. In our society, the accepted norm is to need to see a doctor at least every so often. Many people can go their whole lives and never need a lawyer. When you do need a lawyer, the outcome of the incident generally becomes public record anyway, even if your private communications don't... that would be like if my perscription and surgery records were public, even if what I said to the doctor wasn't. The two privileges clearly occupy different legal and social roles.

Re:So...

[Ironica]

If a corporation was hiding information regarding its misdoings which were at best harmful to the public good but not technically illegal, and at worst amounted to downright fraud and deceit, would you care how that information was obtained?

Is it in the public's interest to know the identities of everyone who is HIV-positive? I mean, greater good and all...

It *is* important whether or not the information was obtained legally. These laws protect *everyone*, even the bad guys. If we stop respecting them because we don't like the person using them, they won't be nearly as strong when we need them for our side.

Re:So...

[arkanes]

Greater good can (and has) been used to trump privacy in the past. It's a very, very hard sell to most courts, which is a good thing. In other cases, it's not so hard - we don't publish AIDs victims, but we publish sex offenders.

Think about if right to privacy trumped free speech in ALL cases - there wouldn't be _any_ leaked memos. I think that, in this case, a newspaper might very well win the case, but it's not a forgone conclusion, nor should it be.

Illegally obtained information is not specially protected - this is a long standing principle. For example, the Pentagon Papers, which were obtained illegally. The main difference here is that it's a private entity and not the government which is involved, and that does make me nervous.

lets get diebold, monster style..

[negacao]

I'll bring the pitchforks.

Who can pitch in for the torches?

<g>

Re:lets get diebold, monster style..

[Chip7]

i'll get the tar, anyone got feathers?

Re:lets get diebold, monster style..

[DarkSarin]

I'll bring the feathers AND the torches. And several 6' lengths of rope....

(maybe I'll bring a 12' high platform too-- just in case).

Re:lets get diebold, monster style..

[NarrMaster]

I'll bring the paper towels..... oh, wait a minute.....

This has ben going on for some time...

[whoever57]

Not only did I post about this yesterday, but I've also submitted stories about the issues with Diebold and the actions of Alameda County officials (Oakland is in Alameda County)

Re:FP

[FrYGuY101]

So what you're saying is...

In the US, you vote for politicians. In Soviet Russia, poiticians vote for you?

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

if you get modded down for this it would be because you're an ignorant racist.

Corporate America....

[TypoNAM]

Hey welcome to Corporate America and you're no longer free thanks to those who are in the house senate for voting our freedoms away.

And I strongly believe it could get a lot worse which it will, history tells us that.

Re:Corporate America....

[Linsaran]

Oh definitely it's gonna get worse. However you have to wonder whether they'll be sneaky about it, passing various unconstitutional laws like the DMCA and hoping that the general population fails to realize what's really going on, or whether congress will just up and revise the constitution, striping away our personal freedoms in the name of anti-terrorism and such. Yet another example of the infinities of human stupidity, by the time Joe Idiot realizes that his rights are being infringed on, there won't be any way for him to fight back.

Not exactly an obscure scenario...

[aussersterne]

Anyone who didn't see this distinct possibility as the result of DMCA et. al. either has forcefully inserted their head in the sand or hasn't been paying attention.

Information wants to be free isn't just a hacker hippie value. It's the foundation of western society, from acadamia through government. The sharing of information is fundamental to the stable and just growth of any society.

Re:Not exactly an obscure scenario...

[LordMyren]

the DMCA is the greatest weapon against freedom of information ever, yes. its horribly bad, yes.

however, by esposing the value of 'freedom of information' in such absolute form, you risk your crusade ruining your support.

patents are a form of information control. our military needs information control. there is a place for the control of information. however, the point of the DMCA 'evil' is that it should not be the corporations who control every bit of information at all related to them.

take everything to its natural ending and extremity, but no further.

Myren

Re:Not exactly an obscure scenario...

[Anonymous Coward]

"our military needs information control"

Why don't you say, "the military". It's use of language like that that highlights the "us vs. them"
mentality of Americans that is so despised by non-Americans.

Re:Not exactly an obscure scenario...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh No. Actually thats not where information belongs...

Information belongs free for everyone.. there should be no restrictions at all on information... and Corporations should have no limit on the company or employee speach or information. We also need to cut ties with the backstabbing organization Halliburton.. and Bush should be impeached for not finding WMD, and the entire presidents cabinet should be put on trial.

Re:Not exactly an obscure scenario...

[1ucius]

Ironically, the only reason the DMCA would come into play is to provide the newspaper with a defense to copyright infringement (which itself is a weak cause of action).

"Return the documents"?

[J'raxis]

"Return the documents"? "Hold the documents"? Has this newspaper ever heard of something called a photocopier?

Re:"Return the documents"?

[wronskyMan]

In the article, it said the judge ordered them to turn over all copies, recordings, etc. of the documents not yet published.

Re:"Return the documents"?

[J'raxis]

Yeah, I know. More of a commentary on the sloppiness of the Slashdot article than the original story.

But The Tribune need not hand over any documents it already has published on its Web site, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs ruled, nor is it precluded from writing further stories about the documents.

Lesson to be learnt -- publish them all at the same time next time, on the Internet. The judge obviously recognizes here that once something's published on the Internet, it's never going to go back in the bottle, so to speak, and there's no point in trying (unlike, for example, the judge in the DeCSS cases).

It's what Osama wanted!

[kawabago]

Osama Bin Laden said after 9/11 that he wanted to destroy the freedoms that Americans enjoy. G.W. Bush is working as hard and fast as he can to fulfill Osama's every wish! Who is the real terrorist?

Re:It's what Osama wanted!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is the real terrorist? CowboyNeal! Wait...what are we voting for again?

Re:It's what Osama wanted!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Osama Bin Laden said after 9/11 that he wanted to destroy the freedoms that Americans enjoy. G.W. Bush is working as hard and fast as he can to fulfill Osama's every wish!"

The Bin Laden and the Bushes go way back. Osama is nothing but the family fall guy, the media created terrorist designed to justify the abolition of freedoms and democracy around the world. The best way to think of him is the embodiment of Emmanuel Goldstein. Do Al Qaeda exist? Sure and there are many members around the world that commit terrorist acts but don't believe for one second that the "leader" is part of it or believes any of the stated Al Qaeda principles. It's completely cynical in a L. Ron Hubbard / Scientology kind of way.

Re:It's what Osama wanted!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Osama Bin Laden never said that he wanted to "destroy American freedoms". George Bush said that OBL said that.

Re:FP

[phreak0003]

Yeah, that's completely what I'm saying Our rights are being taken away everyday... pretty soon the whole Constitution will be void

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

You're out of your mind. You obviously haven't done your homework on the USSR.

Now I'll agree with you that some things that are happening are distasteful (restricting the public printing of private documents isn't one of them, by the way, and has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment), but the US has a ***LONG*** way to go before it's *anywhere* like the USSR was.

I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how people can defend these kinds of actions? What I mean is, Diebold's CEO is obviously in the back pocket of the Prez of the US. He has said he would give Ohio to the Prez in 2004 (I dunno, maybe as a bday gift). And this happens in California. I know that people are not that dumb. They have to see the connection, be it in Florida, California or even Ohio. Yet the backers of Bush and Co don't care. Are they so blind to the fact that they want only their party in power, that they can't see the road these actions are taking the nation?

Like the 'weapons of mass destruction' debacle. Is it so bad to admit the man you support is an asshat, and needs to be thrown out of power, and taken up on criminal charges? God people, take some responsibility, and quit listening to Rush and attacking anyone who doesn't think like you do.

In the immortal words of George Carlin:
I say live and let live. Anyone who can't accept that should be executed.

Re:I wonder

[The Desert Palooka]

I believe you just attacked people who don't think like you... Oh wait now I'm attacking you for attacking me!

ack!

Re:I wonder

[VivianC]

I wonder how people can defend these kinds of actions? What I mean is, Diebold's CEO is obviously in the back pocket of the Prez of the US. He has said he would give Ohio to the Prez in 2004 (I dunno, maybe as a bday gift). And this happens in California. I know that people are not that dumb. They have to see the connection, be it in Florida, California or even Ohio. Yet the backers of Bush and Co don't care. Are they so blind to the fact that they want only their party in power, that they can't see the road these actions are taking the nation?

Voting is not handled at the Federal level. It is done at the local level which is why each county has it's own rules and machines. Bush and company can't tell anyone what voting machines to use. Nor can Congress. You might want to learn a bit about how voting works (and often doesn't) before spouting off. You're pretty dumb even for a Slashdot AC.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Try following the money and you might not sound so dumb either.

Bush stole the election (and no I didn't want the other idiot either).

What Bush has done to the US pales in comparision to a blowjob from an intern.

Re:I wonder

[VivianC]

Try following the money and you might not sound so dumb either.

Bush stole the election (and no I didn't want the other idiot either).

So you are trying to tell me that Bush paid off county governments, specifically Democratic county governments in Florida, so he could only lose by half a million votes but win the electorial vote? Your powers of deduction astound me.

Umm no. ... I hope

[pantherace]

1st amendment=part of Constitution which is the highest law. DMCA federal law, which unless it gets into the constitution (not even a treaty, which is the 2nd highest), is inferior to the Constitution, and any place where the 1st amendment & the DMCA overlap, the 1st amendment wins.

At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

Re:Umm no. ... I hope

[Draknor]

Of course - that assumes the DMCA gets challenged in a federal courts, possibly working its way up to the Supreme Court.

And freedom of speech isn't absolute - you don't have the freedom to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example. You don't have the freedom to say or publish whatever you want about people (aka slander or libel). Freedoms have responsibilities, and it all depends on which way the courts are leaning when the challenge to the DMCA is raised.

In short, the issue is not as simple as "well, Constitution trumps DMCA" - it might, but it's a LONG process to get there. Much damage can be (and has been) done in the meantime.

Re:Umm no. ... I hope

[petabyte]

The yelling "Fire" is an issue of safety and the slander or libel doesn't apply in this case. I think it is pretty clearly a free speech vs. Diebold case.

And I really have no idea how long a road it is to get the rulings that protect free speech in the face of corporate greed. But I think now is certainly a good time to start down that road.

Re:Umm no. ... I hope

[zenthax]

Dont forget...

$$$$>Consitution

Re:Umm no. ... I hope

[Ironica]

(not even a treaty, which is the 2nd highest)

Um, actually, treaties trump the Constitution. It's a clever loophole: Article VI lists them second, but Supreme Court precedent in Japan Line, Ltd., et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al. finds that the Supremacy Clause can actually trump states' rights, if something "prevents the United States from 'speaking with one voice' in regulating foreign trade." This gives Congress the right to enter into treaties that govern activities they are normally forbidden from legislating, and to compel all US citizens and states to comply with them. That's one of the things that makes the WTO so dangerous... if, say, Japan doesn't like California's stringent air quality laws, they can bring complaint against the US at the WTO and the US government has to ask California to back off.

So far, this hasn't been tried on any bill of rights issue that I know of... only in challenging state legislation. But the potential and precedent is there.

Re:Umm no. ... I hope

[1ucius]

Yea, but SCOTUS overturned the first amendment last year :-(

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/displa y. html?terms=free%20and%20speech&url=/supct/html/02- 1674.ZS.html

Re:Umm no. ... I hope

[pantherace]

Actually, I would say that that is not the case here: The Constitution specifically give Congress the power to regulate trade with Foreign Nations, and these containers were certainly used in trade.

The "with one voice" doesn't seem to add anything except to enhance the point of Congress' power to regulate Foreign Commerce, which (from the judgment) appears to be the intent of those writing the Constitution.

I see this as a case of a State going up against constitutionally Congressional Power.

Nah, it's just Michael and Raven...

[Anonymous Coward]

...posting from bogus logins. That's where all the -1s come from.

Breach of trust!

[LostCluster]

Diebold is going to be drummed out of the voting machine business very quickly now...

In California, the process of revoking their license for their transgressions has already started. The software that ran on election day wasn't the software version that was "locked down" and approved. That's just a basic outright fraud, and not something that a company in a position of trust should be trying to cover up.

Game over. Their word is no good anymore... if your anywhere in your state these machines are scheduled to be used, write your state election officials. Even if you're not going to vote on one of those machines, errant tallies from elsewhere in the state could tip the balance in your state's popular vote because it's looking to be a very tight presidential election yet again this year.

Re:Breach of trust!

[taped2thedesk]

Diebold is going to be drummed out of the voting machine business very quickly now...

Perhaps you haven't heard... Diebold is a huge supporter of the Republican party, and I'm sure they have more than enough friends in office right now (including Dubya, to whom Diebold's CEO has promised to deliver the state of Ohio). I'd be surprised if anything actually comes of this in anywhere besides California (if anything even happens there).

The Republicans are SET on making sure that our votes are "counted" by going to electronic voting, and it's something that they want to tightly control. Hell, they walked out - WALKED OUT - of a federal hearing on voting machines.

I think Diebold needs special treatment

[speedfreak_5]

The fact that they are a for-profit company (with a record of donating to the Republican party) in control of voting for some parts of the country seems a bit off. I don't believe these memos should have been leaked. They should have been publicly accessible. Hell, anything tied to their voting division should be publicly accessible to protect the voting process. And Diebold should be held accountable for having plans to screw voters over.

Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment

[rossz]

They have a record of donating to both parties. Let's not get into this so very tired "donating to the Republicans" bullshit.

Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment

[user no. 590291]

Do they have a record of their executives promising to deliver a state's electoral votes to both parties, too? In any case, the post you're replying to is correct--the voting process must be transparent, not hidden with a smokescreen of freedom of information loopholes resulting from intellectual "property" and government contracts with private corporations.

Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment

[speedfreak_5]

Well, according to opensecrets.org, for the 2002 and 2000 election cycles, it doesn't look like too much went to the Democratic party. Diebold could have been donating heavily to the democratic party and I still would be pissed because they are biased (not to mention secretive) and in control of the voting process in many places.

Anyways...

Where did you see records of them donating to the democratic party?

Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment

[MillionthMonkey]

But this is all a side point. Even if Diebold did happen to be politically neutral, so what? Is the next voting machine manufacturer going to be as politically pure? We shouldn't even have to be worrying about Diebold's political affiliation. The mere fact that we are, and that we have to, is all the proof you need that this new process for counting votes is really, really fucked.

A common rule of legal ethics states that the appearance of a conflict of interest (like a judge going on a duck hunting trip with a defendant) is a conflict of interest. It creates unaddressable concerns about impartiality. If that's the case, I think it's not too much of a stretch to suggest that the appearance of voter disenfranchisement creates voter disenfranchisement. It deprives us of our rights as citizens to know for certain that our votes are being counted, which is what disenfranchisement is. Perfectly reasonable voter concerns about touchscreen voting have not been alleviated, nor can they be alleviated. So you voted touchscreen? How do you really know? You really don't, and what's more, you really can't. Worst of all, in some counties, you really didn't.

Are we so used to computerizing everything that we're not even thinking about whether it's a good idea anymore? It's not even like you should even need computers to count votes. What is the benefit? Computers are useful for saving human labor, for eliminating human intervention. That's why they replaced the armies of accountants and office clerks that used to be legion in decades and centuries past. What is being gained by computerizing voting? Is it so that we won't have to vote anymore? Is it so that we don't have to count the votes? Votes are counted by machines already, using technology that is transparent to auditing. You can see the ballots move through them. They could be made by Nazis or Scientologists and you could still trust those machines. We hire a couple goons to watch the stacks of ballots and we can be reasonably certain that nobody's vote is being lost or tampered with. Currently, voting involves as much human intervention as is absolutely required for everyone to retain trust in the process, and not much more.

Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't any. But just because they're donating to Republicans, and the CEO and the entire board are devout Republicans, and the CEO has promised to "deliver" electoral votes to the president, and conducted extensive Republican fundraisers, and they apparently are aware that their machines are insecure and can be used untracably to fix elections and they don't care doesn't mean they're not trustworthy!

After all, they donate to REPUBLICANS. They're not like those dangerous pinko liberal commie Democrats. Its not like they'd cheat, right? Al Gore really did get -16,000 votes in that one test... Right?

Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a record of donating to both parties. Let's not get into this so very tired "donating to the Republicans" bullshit.

According to opensecrets.org, $39,690 was donated by Diebold employees for the 2002 and 2204 election cycles, of which $2500 was to democrats, $1500 to PACs and the rest to republicans (mainly Bush and Voinovich). This is not a good record of donating to both parties.

Of course, any amount to either party is too much --- anyone working in this area should not have even a hint of partisanship!

This is a great thing!

[erroneus]

When the first amendment is threatened by the DMCA, that's yet more people who will rally against the DMCA. The more people the DMCA hurts, the closer be come to removing it as law... once removed, it becomes less likely that laws more serious would be passed as well.

Remember the bill of rights?

[Metuchen]

Are there any other US Citizens out there that are pissed off that the government continues trampling on the bill of rights?

1. freedom of the press...just look at this story
2. the freedom to bear firearms...has been restricted.
3. the right to a speedy and public trial...citizens can now be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism, and major trials are often closed.
4. property can now be seized without due process of law.
5. wiretaps, which used to require a warrant, now can be performed with no proof and just a hint of suspicion.

The examples go on and on, and I would argue that while it may be justified in some instances, the slope is a slippery one, and I believe that we, as US citizens must stand up and tell our government that this is *not* okay!

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[DarkSarin]

Your my friend...

I posted on this earlier, and got slammed for my stance against gun control/registration. Thank you for telling it like it is.

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

i'd like to note in particular the freedom of assembly provided within the 1st ammendment. the supreme court has ruled that the 'purer' the form of speech, the better it is protected by the 1st ammendmant. yet in spite of protesting being the most explicitly protected medium of free speech, we continually see police declaring '1st ammendmant` zones, restricting protestors to isolate areas and delcaring nothing short of the suspension of habeus corpus: innocent until proven guilty.

watching protest video's is just disgusting: a wall of body armor riot shields clubs and mace.

freedom to bear arms is a joke. it was meant to give citizens the power to overthrow a tyrannical government (*cough*). however there are a couple problems with this:
1) body armor is illegal
2) 100 years of law enforcement technological advances
3) body armor is illegal
4) its just not gonna happen
5) body armor is illegal

guns do no good when your dead. the constitution may have given us a right to attack tyranny, but we have no right to survive it. given the current state of police brutality against practitioners of free speech, i think we at least need some way to soften the blow.

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[Orne]

Totally agree.

1. The press has become so lopsided, so Democrat, that they are so eager to demean the current administration that they can't even bother to check the validity of the images of "Soldiers killed in Iraqi combat".

2. And the current administration is the strongest proponent of lifting those restrictions on gun control.

3. The counter-party is blocking the appointment of new judges to replace retiring officials. Sounds like being against speedy trials to me.

4. Thank you Clinton for using executive orders to confiscate land and turn it into federal parks.

You're right, we need to clean out half of congress... but we will argue about which half needs to go.

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will u be my fwend two? K THANKS!

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[Poeir]

But at least soldiers aren't being quartered in private houses.

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[BCW2]

Right on the money.

But in truth we need to replace all members of Congress. Remember any of the who have served more than 2 terms are working for those who line their pockets. Never forget that anyone who makes less than $135,000/year has no representation. They represent their own tax bracket and the ones they aspire to.

The founding fathers wanted a citizen legislature to come in do the job and go home to real jobs, not an overpaid permanet ruling class.

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[orthogonal]

1. The press has become so lopsided, so Democrat, that they are so eager to demean the current administration that they can't even bother to check the validity of the images of "Soldiers killed in Iraqi combat".


The press is using images obtained by The Memory Hole under a Freedom of Information Act request.

The request was for any photos of soldiers killed in Iraq. The Department of Defense, in response to the request gave a CD of photos The Memory Hole.

The Memory Hole made those photos available to the press.

Everyone in that chain thought the photos were of our Iraq dead because of an error by the Department of Defense. You're the only one foolish enough to blame "the press" for the government's error.

Even if some of the phots are of the Space Shuttle astronauts, those photos showing more than seven caskets certainly are not.

And even if all the photos were "invalid" that doesn't change the facts: over 700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and the current administration has tried to suppress photos of caskets -- and Bush has failed to attend a ingle soldier's funeral -- because the administration
doesn't want the American public to get a visceral feel for the costs of this unnecessary war.

I suppose you think that it's because of "press bias" that no photos of the putative "reason" for going to war, the soi-disant Weapons of Mass Destruction, have been published?

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

and Bush has failed to attend a ingle soldier's funeral -- because the administration
doesn't want the American public to get a visceral feel for the costs of this unnecessary war.

Maybe he doesn't want to turn a private funeral into a media circus just to show off for the cameras? Maybe parent's don't want their children's dead bodies paraded on CNN to be USED by the opposition as a political device?

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[red floyd]

3. The counter-party is blocking the appointment [nytimes.com] of new judges to replace retiring officials. Sounds like being against speedy trials to me.


Don't go blaming the Dems on this. The GOP did the same thing while Clinton was in office.

Disclaimer: I'm a registered Libertarian.

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[orthogonal]

Maybe parent's don't want their children's dead bodies paraded on CNN to be USED by the opposition as a political device?

Maybe the parents do. Let's ask Sue Niederer, mother of slain soldier Seth Dvorin (emphasis orthogonal's):

But many relatives of soldiers who died in Iraq believe the White House is trying to cover up what is happening there. Sue Niederer said she was refused permission to see the return of her son Seth Dvorin's body as it was flown into the Dover base. Lieutenant Dvorin, 24, from the 101st Airborne Division, was killed in February while trying to disarm a roadside bomb, a task for which he was not trained.

Speaking from her home in New Jersey, Mrs Niederer said: "They killed my son and they did not permit me to be there to see the coffin. They said it was for health reasons, and ... they did not want the public to see it and they did not want the newspapers there." She added: "They don't want any of this being shown because it's reality. A coffin strikes home. If you don't see the coffin you just say: 'Oh, there's another one who has died.' But when you show the coffin, you show families, you show people and emotions. This is what they are doing this is what they do not want you to see."

From "The image turning America against Bush" by Andrew Buncombe, for The Independent (UK)

By the way, if you think news shows showing coffins is "using" the fallen soldiers, what do you think of Bush campaign ads showing the remains of a fallen firefighter being removed from Ground Zero? Surely you'll agree that an advertisement showing mangled remains is worse than a news program showing a casket with an ironed and neatly folded American flag over it? Right? Right?

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[Cid Highwind]

"The founding fathers wanted a citizen legislature to come in do the job and go home to real jobs, not an overpaid permanet ruling class."

Hear hear!

That's a noble sentiment, but your sig just reinforces the false dichotomy between "liberal" and "conservative" that keeps the people divided against each other and keeps the oligarchy in office.

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[mdielmann]

But at least soldiers aren't being quartered in private houses.

I'm looking into the future, and guess what Bush has planned for one of his budget cuts in 2005?

My experience

[du -Lhcs]

I live in Brasil. We have had voting machines in the last 12-14 years (yes, twelve to fourteen -- it depends the size of the city you are in). For the Brazilians here: the first election here in Belo Horizonte to use the machines were the mayoral (and city council, state representation, governor, house and senate) before FHC was elected (as I count it, 2 years + 8 years + 1 1/2 = 11,5 years). I know it, because I was "mesário" (election "table" official? election "clerk"? what is a good English translation?) in the previous election, and in the two subsequent elections). IIRC, there were electronic ballot boxes in Rio and Sao Paulo in the election before that (the only two cities larger than Belo Horizonte).
Our voting machines are mainly of three different (internally) models: (a) the old ones, that use VirtuOS (*) as the OS, (b) the new ones, that use WinCE as the OS, and (c) the newest and deprecated ones that have the second printer to print your vote, show it to you inside a clear acrilic case, and mix it with others inside the machine.
Externally, all of them look roughly the same: a box similar to the old "portables" of the eighties, with a 5-6" diagonal LCD and a big numerical keypad in the right side of the screen, that has, besides 0-9 keys, "confirma" (ok), "erro" (cancel), and "branco" (white).
The electoral process (from the point of view of the voter) begins ... when you get your first job. If you are a mandatory voter (literate person from 18 to 65) you have to go to Electoral Court and register to vote. In the process of registering, you receive the "Título de Eleitor" (voter id), in which you have the number of you voting section. To change jobs, and specially to get a government job, you have to prove you are a registered *and* *regularized* voter (you voted in the last election, or regularized your voting situation after it).
In the election day, you scan the newspapers (or the Superior Electoral Court website), search for the address of your section, and go there. No, there is no transit vote, you can only vote at that address. If you can't get there, you'll have to "justify" your absence.
At the section, you will present your voter id to one the "mesários", and if you don't have it on you, you can still vote (you can show other valid id), but will be delayed. The mesário will search for your name in the vote-ticket sheet, and annex it to your id while you vote. You will sign a receipt in a sheet, and proceed to the voting "booth". Another "mesário" will type your voter id # in a remotely connected keypad, setting the machine in the "ready to vote" mode.
The voting "booth" is really a desk with the voting machine over it, facing nobody else in the room, and sometimes with a cardboard "cover" around it. You will "dial" the numbers of the candidates, in order. when you dial all the digits of one candidate, a star-trek-like chime rings, his/her face will show up in the screen, and if you digited it right, you hit "ok". otherwise, you hit "cancel" and start over. After typing all the candidates, you hit "ok" one last time, the machine chimes again, and goes to "stand by" mode. You have voted. If you don't want to vote for nobody, you can hit "white" instead of the candidate ## (accounted as a "white vote", or "none of the above" -- this is the equivalent of putting your paper ballot in the box without marking anything), or if you really want to protest you can type 9999 or other non-existent-candidate-#, and your vote will be accounted as a "null vote", or "I'm really pissed of" (the equivalent of drawing pictures or writing "improper expletives" in a paper ballot)
Then, you get your id back, your ticket (keep it together with your voter id!!), and you go home. Ah, bars do not open (theoretically) in the election day, so hope you have bought your beer in the day before).
From the point of view of election officials, things are more complicated. The machines arrive to the Electoral Judge (yes, a Judge of Law) pre-prepared one to two months

Re:My experience

[dj245]

or "I'm really pissed of" (the equivalent of drawing pictures or writing "improper expletives" in a paper ballot)

So... do this on a paper ballot, and its a protest of your rights being trampled. But do it on slashdot, Modded -1, troll.

Well, at least this post has no link to http://goat.cx/...

Re:My experience

[Dash-o-Salt]

I thought I saw this comment yesterday. And so I did! Is this guy 'humassa' as well?

Stolen Post.

Re:FP

[phreak0003]

USSR was communist, and also the people were restricted in everything they did. I'm sorry to say that the US is heading towards communism. Now our rights have been taken away, if YOU have done YOUR homework by looking into the patriot act.

"...at least, that's how it's supposed to work."

[Anonymous Coward]

But as we've all seen for ourselves, that's not how it's actually working these days. The Constitution is now viewed by lawmakers and their friends as nothing but a trivial obstruction, to be safely ignored and refuted at every turn.

When in Trouble, When in Doubt,

[MichaelCrawford]

Run in Circles, Scream and Shout.

Revolution? I doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even back in Washington's day he could seldom rally more than 5,000 troops, out of a population even then numbering in the millions.

Americans are too busy watching reruns of Celebrity Treasure Island or American Idol to care about boring shit like abuse of the Constitution.

We harp on and on about being the Land of the Free(tm) and Home of the Brave(tm) but we meekly rolled over and pissed on ourselves the second we were told to by President Rumsfeld.

Don't get used to the current state of affairs, because it's going to get a hell of a lot worse eventually.

Re:Revolution? I doubt it.

[persaud]

> Don't get used to the current state of affairs, because it's
> going to get a hell of a lot worse eventually.

Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Starr.

Lifetime appointments last longer than 4 years.

Re:Revolution? I doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

why are you such a fag? the world wants to know.

Re:Revolution? I doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes eventually a wiley Democrat administration will disarm the population and the revolution will have to be fought with sticks and rocks!!

But hey, atleast they "prevented" a school shooting (paving the way for school bombings) while they stole our country and rights and gave them to the Gay Rainbow Panthers!

Re:Revolution? I doubt it.

[killjoe]

Holy shit. Now I'll never get to sleep.

I sure hope somebody puts a bullet in that fuckers head before he sits on the bench.

Re:Revolution? I doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Soldiers are citizens too.

Remember the whole "right to keep and bear arms" thing?

It wasn't for just hunting squirrels.

information/speach = power. Politicial power and thus "free speach" is protected to keep power in the hands of the people.

Guns/Weapons = power. This is a different sort of power. You want to keep this in the hands of the citizens, too. It's just as important as free speach.

There are dreadfull consiquences to free speach, just like their are to widespread gun ownership. Big coporations "own" the airwaves and news people report what they think is relevient thru their own natural human biases. So you get distortions.

but like gun ownership, responsible people make sure that the benifits of free speach far outweigh the risks.

Just because the impression that you get is that most people don't care (a impression provided by the same people that DO the news AND the game shows, BTW) doesn't mean that people aren't paying attention.

Look at the ratings of the "survivor series"-type shows. What percentage of the population follows that closely? Maybe 1 out of 10 people I know watched more then one episode out of those things, but 7 out of 10 people I know have a strong opinion about political issues.

That's why talk radio is much more popular then say, CNN. Not because people are feed biases left and right, but because the hosts are generally honest about their political leanings and give people something to talk about. Or at least the feeling that they have somebody to talk to.

not voting IS the problem

[LordMyren]

not voting is the problem. vote however you want, avoid the Democricans and Republicrats if you want, but for the love of god, vote.

if everyone actually got out there and voted, the whole election game would be miles left of where it is now. many with liberal leanings tend to feel dis-enfranchised (see: youth) and dont vote. and they make the system as bad as it is by letting all these assclown republicans actually have the relative support (votes: the only support that matters in the end) for the pranks they're pulling these days.

i think the state should release the names of everyone who doesnt vote. you should be able to track which of your friends vote in some obscenely easy manner(directly through friendster?). maybe just a red mark on everyone's head who doesnt vote.

voting is your civic duty. we have republicans because liberals are too stupid to vote. the election game would be so much better if people actually bothered to vote.

Re:not voting IS the problem

[Dwonis]

I have two points:

1. People who don't understand the issues shouldn't vote on them.
2. Voting isn't going to solve the problem unless a fair voting system is used.

Re:not voting IS the problem

[Resident Netizen]

Unfortunately, facts and implications of any piece of proposed legislature are often clouded by the propaganda mill run by the proponents. Witness politics-as-usual. 'Not voting' is not a healthy alternative, even if one is not sure of the real issues. There are sources which can provide a break-down for you- with varying slants to suit your whim. Whether you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore you can learn *something* about what's going on. Hopefully you sample both!

Re:not voting IS the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

We get republicans because Liberals are stupid and vote for assclowns like kerry, Dean, Mondale Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, The Grand Kleagle Byrd, need I go on?

Being progressive does not mean destroying the whole fabric of society to effect a minor change. What you hate as being conservative is actually moderate. The true right wing reactionaries are still hiding up in Montana and Idaho, bitching about Bush bing a left leaning, gloablaist, UN Tool, pinko!

You should edit your post to reflect the truth, thank god we have Bush, because Liberals are too stupid!

Re:not voting IS the problem

[LordMyren]

although far less than ideal, if we actually had a respsectable voter turnout, i believe these issues would eventually come to remedy in natural due course (couple decades).

to more direct address your post:

1. there's a lot of people who dont understand the issues but do vote anyways. enforcing the notion of voting as a civic responsibility will help both sides (voters without a clue & non-voters) to wisen up and stop letting these assclowns run our government.
2. a less than ideal system will have to suffice until the day comes when people realize a change is necessary. that change will come a lot faster if people have civic responsibility.

myren

Re:not voting IS the problem

[LordMyren]

agreed. i really dont understand where we come up with these political candidates. looking at the primaries, i could not fathom where they dredged these guys up.

Re:not voting IS the problem

[0x0d0a]

People who don't understand the issues shouldn't vote on them.

Yes, but aging Bible-thumpers *are* voting. The question is whether they can be counteracted or not.

Re:not voting IS the problem

[GypC]

if everyone actually got out there and voted, the whole election game would be miles left of where it is now

Heh. That's an unlikely scenario. Where exactly do you live that you have this impression of the average American?

Re:not voting IS the problem

[drunkenbatman]

People who don't understand the issues shouldn't vote on them

That's absolutely beautiful! Who decides who really understands an issue? An IQ test would perhaps be one way, in which case you've just created another aristocracy.

But by and large, assuming you're in power, whomever happens to agree with you will be considered to have a real understanding of the issue. Have you never, evar sat in a meeting/situation where either:

• Group A has been struggling with a problem a decent amount of time, and just isn't making any headway, even though they know the problem backwards and forwards. Person B comes in and, armed with only a fresh set of eyes and comparably little knowledge of the project, sees the obvious answer staring right back at them in no time flat.
• Had someone give you an explanation, whose logic seemed to have some very deep flaws. When they're pressed to explain some of these further, you get a somewhat disdainful stare and a quip along the lines of "Leave it to us, you wouldn't understand."

Woa, damn. You've just proposed something that would prolly turn into a theocracy, in addition to your earlier proposition of an aristocracy. This is why precisely why we have checks and balances.

oting isn't going to solve the problem unless a fair voting system is used.

My problem with "altnernative voting systems" is that those that push them the hardest would seem to have the most to gain.

Re:not voting IS the problem

[Dwonis]

That's absolutely beautiful! Who decides who really understands an issue?

The individual voters. I'm not saying anyone should be prevented from voting by the state; I'm saying that part of everyone's civic duty is to understand the issues before voting, and to not vote at all when the issue is beyond one's ability to understand. I'm primarily refering to cases where people are voting on individual issues, but the general concept still applies to elections of representatives.

My problem with "altnernative voting systems" is that those that push them the hardest would seem to have the most to gain.

I could take the same facts and say, "My problem with keeping things the way they are is that those who have something to lose by changing the voting system are the most silent."

It seems as though you're basing your beliefs on mistrust of others, rather than finding out for yourself. I suggest you actually read the link I posted (and perhaps this one too). The Condorcet winner of an election is a well-defined mathematical and logical concept that more accurately represents voter intent than any other system.

Re:not voting IS the problem

[drunkenbatman]

t seems as though you're basing your beliefs on mistrust of others, rather than finding out for yourself. I suggest you actually read [wikipedia.org] the link I posted (and perhaps this one [electionmethods.org] too). The Condorcet winner of an election is a well-defined mathematical and logical concept that more accurately represents voter intent than any other system.


Nope, i've just heard it all before. People hear about these things, and go completely starry eyed and think they've found the one true answer to democracy. It's even worse than the "you might be an anti-spam kook if..." lists.

Extensions of majority rule are dangerous (which is what condorcet is, IE: if every voter prefers alternative a over b then b should not win, even if it has the most votes), there's a reason why we have the system we do. Checks and balances, it's textbook Jefferson stuff.

Something akin to a preferential voting system would have helped the repubs in some past elections, and pushed down the threat of Nader in this one for the dems. It pushes all the parties farther away from having to walk the line between the centers and the wings.

I really just wish the dem's would stop getting ready to brand Nader an evil-dooer and actually work on a message that gets through to people, not just being "not bush". You know, like sitting down and figuring out how to make people understand in concrete ways why the patriotic act is so dangerous.

Re:not voting IS the problem

[Dwonis]

Extensions of majority rule are dangerous (which is what condorcet is, IE: if every voter prefers alternative a over b then b should not win, even if it has the most votes), there's a reason why we have the system we do. Checks and balances, it's textbook Jefferson stuff.

Huh? As far as I can tell, the legitimacy of western democratic government is based on the concept of majority rule. As for "textbook Jefferson stuff", could you elaborate? I don't live in the U.S.

Re:not voting IS the problem

[LordMyren]

(merely refering to the fact that the left v. right game would be about three miles left of center on the raw numbers. liberals dont vote)

Re:not voting IS the problem

[drunkenbatman]

Huh? As far as I can tell, the legitimacy of western democratic government is based on the concept of majority rule.

The legitimacy of western democratic government is based upon the the fact that the people elect their representatives, that the representatives are made up of the people, and that there is a peaceful transition of power.

The USA is actually a democratic republic, and is very much about protecting the minority from the majority. An example would be the electoral college, that every undergrad for some reason decides is outdated (it became a real issue after gore lost the election after winning more votes), which was/is one of the big problems we've faced with Iraq. A large # of the population wanted a direct vote, which would, you know, serve them well as their ethnicity was in the vast majority. The USA is basically saying "no, you are going to have an electoral college" specifically so that the minorities that live there aren't completely run over.

IE, when the country was being founded, there was a famous & influential theorist (dutch?) who essentially said "the usa will last up until the populace realizes they can vote themselves all the money in the treasury." Jefferson and the others took a lot of these issues to heart.

As for "textbook Jefferson stuff", could you elaborate? I don't live in the U.S.

It's ok, most americans don't get it either. :( But his writings are really worth a read. I've written about it on /. in the past, so i'm not going to write a book or anything.

But basically, Jefferson, and many others of the founding fathers, were extremely forward thinking when they designed our system. When they realized they had won, Jefferson immediately wrote home telling his wife to save every single correspondence/writing he'd ever done, pretty much realizing this was going to be a big deal. The system is designed to last, and while many of the issues of today aren't exactly the same as when the country was founded, they often parallel them. And to be quite honest, while some things weren't really possible at the time (ending slavery, etc), most believe that Jefferson and the others had a pretty good idea that the policies they were setting down would eventually cause them to be worked out.

IE, many now, when they think minority/majority think ethnicity. Going back to the idea of protecting the minority from the majority, protecting minority races from the majority wasn't the main problem of the time, but rather preserving cultural and religious (read up on some of this- ben franklin taking it upon himself to have a jewish temple built, and a mosque i believe) minorities from being trampled upon by the majority. But it really applies to all minority groups, and hence the same principle has served america well when it comes to minority civil rights being worked out. Even when it comes to women's suffrage, etc. It's STILL in progress (ie, many believe it would almost be illegal now to have a draft without drafting women, etc) and will always be. But these basic principles, the government being setup to protect the minority from the majority rule, are what allowed all the rest of the progress to really take place. This was a HUGE FEAR of Jeffersons', what he called the 'tyranny of mob rule'. We've had our rough patches, like the mcarthy era which basically showed why some of this is so dangerous, but by and large it gets worked out and we move forward.

Besides the 'tyranny of mob rule' example, another of his big fears was a government "of the cities, by the cities and for the cities". At the time, the shift from an agricultural-based society to one based on city life was one they were able to anticipate, often by looking throughout europe and elsewhere. The idea being that since cities were much more densely populated than rural areas, a purely democratic majority-rule based system would lead to politicians spending more and more of their time and effort supporting the cities, whil

Re:not voting IS the problem

[Dwonis]

Nothing you've written so far contradicts my assertion that the Concorcet method is better. What you've described is a system of government, while the Condorcet method is a system of voting. For example, in any particular area (electoral college?) there are several different candidates a person can vote for. Let's say there are 5 candidates calling for budget reform, and one candidate calling for more goverment funding to oil companies. If 70% of the voters want one of the budget reform candidates, (leaving 30% of the voters wanting more money to oil companies), the money-to-oil-companies candidate will win, even though 70% of the voters are opposed to that candidate. That's the problem with plurality voting.

Furthermore, since voters are aware of the problem of vote splitting, they are encouraged to vote for one of the "major" candidates, because they are otherwise essentially throwing their votes away. This means that a start-up candidate cannot ever win an election unless s/he has enough advertising resources to make a large number of voters think s/he is a major contender. It's essentially voter lock-in.

Condorcet voting would easily replace plurality voting within the electoral college system. (Unless I'm grossly mistaken about the way the electoral college system works. Voting is multiple-choice, right?)

Re:not voting IS the problem

[drunkenbatman]

Yeah, I have, in the first reply.

"Isn't [Slashdot] a site for idiots?"

[Anonymous Coward]

You've just proved that.

What about the pentagon papers?

[DAldredge]

Doesn't the rullings of our courts in the 'Pentagon Papers' case make what is being done unlawful?

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

because of the GNAA?

Re:FP

[I don't want to spen]

You mean like:

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
John Kenneth Galbraith

heh... yeah right.

[Anonymous Coward]

like you'll actually find anybody who will stand up for themselves or their rights. they'll just do the usual and slink away in the hope that someone else will do all the hard work for them. we're taking it up the ass, and shall continue to take it up the ass, but whereas right now they are using a garden gnome, in future it'll be a freight train.

Re:heh... yeah right.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that right now, "they" were using a greased Yoda doll.

~~~

Asserting attorney-client privilege

[Hamster Lover]

Diebold is asserting attorney-client privilege and attorney work papers.

What a joke, if the Federal government can violate attorney-client privilege by listening in on the phone calls of accused persons with their attorney, the Tribune can publish internal memos. All gloves are off, so to speak.

Just my 2 cents.

Problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't formally arrest you. They make you magically "disappear"--probably to gitmo. Thanks Congress.

They're probably not as nasty about it as Himler and the gestapo were, but I wouldn't want to be noticed by them, either.

But, you're not a troll pretending to hate Bush...

[Anonymous Coward]

...when in fact it's obvious you're trying to generate hatred for those you profess to consider victims. So who are you really? A Republican and KKK member?

Is This the America I Love?

[MichaelCrawford]

A couple of years ago I wrote an essay called Is This the America I Love? Maybe it's pertinent here, seeing how our next election is well on its way to getting even more fixed than the last one was.

I just feel the need to write right now. Something has gone terribly wrong with the country I was raised to love. The good things that America stands for are being trampled into the dirt by those charged with the burden of protecting them.

I was raised to be a patriotic American. I grew up a military brat - my father was a proud officer of the United States Navy, who served in the Vietnam War. When I was young, I was always told that my father was fighting to preserve the freedoms that were guaranteed us by the United States Constitution.

In the first grade, I attended a school run by the U.S. Navy in Gaeta, Italy, where my father was stationed aboard the U.S.S. Springfield. Each day when we started school we sang patriotic songs and said the Pledge of Allegiance. We were told that America stood for freedom and democracy and justice.

I loved America for what it stood for.

I was told that things like political persecution, detainment without trial, and beating of prisoners were things that happened in other countries, that they would never happen in America. I was told that we fought the American Revolution and wrote the Constitution specifically to ensure such things would never again happen in America.

But today I see the ugly face of repression rising in America. And it is brought to you by the United States Government.

Trusted Computing

[dacap]

Trusted Computing!?!?! What are Deibold and Trusted Computing doing in the same sentence????

Technology Dependance

[pipingguy]

There are times when it is worth the (ahem) "extra cost" of not using computers. I think this is one of them, and you have to know when to put the foot down. Insert appropriate Monty Python imagery here.

I don't think I'm alone when I say that managers (and elected politicians are just that, popularly-chosen managers) tend to not be the sharpest bricks in the bag of hammers when it comes to technology.

Nazi comparison

[koi88]

"either they are mindless dolts, or they love security more than freedom."

I think that's natural. A few years ago, I met an old German lady who told me about the Nazi-time in Germany: "You can say many bad things about the time, but at least a woman could go out at night without fear."

How many Americans would be willing to sell almost useless freedoms like freedom of press or speech for individual safety?
By the way, Hitler, the elected chancellor, extended his power immensely with emergency laws... because of the dangerous situation, they said.
Not unlike Bush's "War against terror" (you know, we are at war) that has brought so many things that were previously unthinkable. One advantage of this "war against terror" is, that it will never end. So there's no need to give back the liberties to the people.

Diebold PHB's == EVIL what about the developers?

[sirrube]

Ok the Diebold PHB's may be evil - but there has to be a few decent honest developers working at that company.
Lets hear from you -
Since I am from San Diego I know for certain you were not working on your software.
I am assuming that you must have been reading /. at work like the rest of us do.
I find it hard to believe that everyone including the developers are evil at that company. I can only assume the PHB's are not writing the code so if something dishonest was happening I am sure we would hear from an honest developer. Besides you can always vote with paper by using a mail in ballot.

Internet Explorer - The crack ho of the internet.

Re:Diebold PHB's == EVIL what about the developers

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not evil--just incompetent. But it's a paycheck.

Re:FUCKING NIGGERS! FUCKING NIGGERS! FUCKING NIGGE

[Anonymous Coward]

DIEBLOD :: ELECTION

a) Republicans :: winning
b) Apple :: DMCA
c) Editor modbombing :: discussion
d) Taco :: MPAA

first war that they

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanted to restrict that. Always before it was just a solemn scene, but it wasn't restricted much, AFAIK.

Re:first war that they

[Anonymous Coward]

first, restricting the release of information is not the same as dibold's lawyers trying to prevent the publication of it. The first is not a freedom of speech issue. The second is.
Second, the reason the military does not want the photos distributed is not to "hide the cost of the war" ... If that were the case they woudln't admit it immediately when a soldier dies. The reason is to prevent those they see as enemies of our country (the news media) from dishonoring dead soldiers in their moneygrubbing.

REALITY CHECK

[SatanicPuppy]

The DMCA does not supercede the constitution. So, until it becomes a consitutional amendment, newspapers and TV stations and anyone else has the right to file a freedom of information request.

Don't lose sleep in this case...

[YouHaveSnail]

I don't think we need to worry too much about Diebold setting up any sort of trusted computing platform correctly.

You don't have to do it across the board

[Greyfox]

I know that for the immediate future, no one can really challenge the major parties for the presidency. However there's nothing to stop you from voting for the lesser of two evils at that level and going whichever way you want to at lower levels. We had several libertarian and green victories out here in Colorado in the last round of local elections even though a lot of those same people voted for a major party for the congressional and presidential elections.

I think it shows a trend toward the major disenchantment with the major parties that people are voicing more and more. They're currently getting their feet wet with the other parties. If those parties prove themselves on a local level, we'll start seeing more fo them win in Congress and eventually they may take the presidency. And I, for one, welcome our new left-handed lesbian eskimo albino party overlords.

Re:You don't have to do it across the board

[Ironica]

However there's nothing to stop you from voting for the lesser of two evils at that level and going whichever way you want to at lower levels.

Sure there is: my own conscience.

"Anybody but Bush" is a very, very dangerous path to tread. I'll vote for Kerry if I think I wouldn't mind him as president, but if he pisses me off the way Gore did, a minor party will be getting my vote again.

Then again, I'm in California, so it's not like I'm going to lose the election for the Democrats (latest poll shows Bush's chances in California approaching those of Frosty the Snowman in Malibu). Still, it's the whole idea of voting against instead of voting for that leaves us with no good choices.

Now, if we could just get a decent voting system in place, that would be wonderful. Something like Instant Runoff Voting for example. Then there wouldn't be any of this fear about "throwing away your vote" and the whole peer-pressure thing. You could vote for who you *really* want as your first choice, and then choose your backup options if that guy doesn't make it.

Re:You don't have to do it across the board

[localman]

Since you know the voting system is messed up it is a bit crazy to stand on principal and, yes, throw your vote away. It burns me that our voting system is so poor, but I can't see any benefit in being stubborn about it and letting idiots choose the next president.

I think that one of the reasons we get shitty elected officials sometimes is this tendency for intelligent and/or ethical people to vote their heart, damn reality, damn the consequences.

In a presidential election as grave as the upcoming one, please vote for the lesser of two evils, and vote for election reform, but make yourself useful, dammit!

You are right that if you are in a state where the outcome is obvious you may get away with a "political statement" vote. But be careful as the polls better be coming in 10% margin before that's a safe bet.

Cheers.

Re:You don't have to do it across the board

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anybody but Bush" is a very, very dangerous path to tread.

Generally, I would agree but I can't believe for a moment that it's as dangerous as allowing Bush to stay. That man's got to go.

Re:You don't have to do it across the board

[0x0d0a]

"Anybody but Bush" is a very, very dangerous path to tread. I'll vote for Kerry if I think I wouldn't mind him as president, but if he pisses me off the way Gore did, a minor party will be getting my vote again.

The problem is that a couple of people taking an ideological stand were what put Bush in the White House in the first place. Nobody wants to see that happen again. Let me be blunt -- the Green Party, the Communist Party, whoever -- they aren't going to get anyone in as the president. This isn't an attempt to keep them from winning -- they just currently don't have enough popular support. We know this from polls, where people don't have any incentive to poll in favor of the Dems or the GOP.

By "voting for someone else", you aren't doing anything particularly ethical. You are simply throwing your vote away. You *know* that this means that you are handing the influence that you could have had over to the masses, which currently slightly favor Bush. You cannot "wash your hands of the mess" by voting Green.

I agree that a revised voting system would be better (starting with removing the electoral college, and next going to a multi-choice system). However, if Green really isn't going to win, you do nobody any good by voting Green.

Re:You don't have to do it across the board

[Ironica]

By "voting for someone else", you aren't doing anything particularly ethical. You are simply throwing your vote away.

By voting for someone who I actually don't support becoming president, I'm throwing my vote away.

Think the republicans all like Bush? Not even. If everyone really voted only for people that they actually wanted to see in office, Bush wouldn't stand a chance.

I'm sick of people just voting "no." That's how we ended up with a president we didn't choose last time.

Re:You don't have to do it across the board

[dnoyeb]

In a presidential election as grave as the upcoming one, please vote for the lesser of two evils, and vote for election reform, but make yourself useful, dammit!

I will not be manipulated. I am an American, willing to suffer for what I believe in. And why not? I am already suffering for what I don't believe in.

Re:You don't have to do it across the board

[localman]

Oh well then. Suffer away. Idiots will run the country as long as the more intelligent people hold on to this purist attitued that only a perfect candidate should get their vote, as opposed to the best likely winner.

Oh yes, and if you're going to throw your vote away in the meantime, please vote for voting reform whenever possible.

Cheers.

The Best Of The Documents Posted Thus Far..

[althecat]

It is interesting to have a look at what these guys want back... So far the Tribune has only touched the surface of these documents.

Included in the set of links at the Bev Harris story linked in the original post is a particularly damning memo

This One

Unfortunately you can't cut and paste the content out of these memos - it turns to garbage... but this one deals with advice to Diebold on how to deal with the State of California's request to produce documents.

It is more than clear from this document that Diebold's lawyers were doing all they could to obstruct this discovery process. The memo states among other things that they want to figure out what the state already has via the original FTP site screw up so as not to get caught out.

They also talk about the "smoking gun" request, opining that their client "may need to obtain emails, if possible, regarding state certification of uncertified software. We need to devise a plan to locate responsive documents to this request."

What do you reckon this means...

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

Republican = Democrat = One Party System!! Vote independent, vote Green, vote whatever, but do please VOTE!

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see any evidence that the U.S. is moving away from capitalism.

Re: Greater Good

[Anonymous Coward]

It is that kind of thinking that got us the patriot act. Heck, let's get rid of the need for search warrants all together. It is for the greater good, after all.

Trying to push the limit.

[BCW2]

Diebold screwed up, and they admit it.
Trusted computing is M$ FUD.
The DMCA was written by technology and entertainment companies to protect a dying business model. Then enacted by a techonlogicaly illiterate Congress.

In short, none of these groups really know what they are doing. The Supreme Court will have to rule on the DMCA/Free press issue. Nothing can be settled till then.

Re:Trying to push the limit.

[0x0d0a]

While I agree with your sentiments...

Diebold screwed up, and they admit it.

It'd be very difficult for them to do anything else at this point.

Trusted computing is M$ FUD.

FUD != BS. FUD is spreading unfounded and vague worries about something. FUD is a very specific subset of BS. Trusted computing as an idea is not only pushed by MS, but by all those random little companies that keep popping up with ideas to control content that don't work. It's a useful tool to extract money from media companies. It (at least in the general purpose computing arena) has little chance of becoming practically usable.

The DMCA was written by technology and entertainment companies to protect a dying business model. Then enacted by a techonlogicaly illiterate Congress.

Mmm...maybe.

There are obviously severe issues with attempting to enforce the DMCA. However, remember that there are severe issues with attempt to enforce copyright offline, as well. When copyright started, you could whip out your printing press and knock off tons of copies. When Mark Twain was working on strengthening copyright internationally, it was common for people to rip off books. The DMCA is an attempt to deal with this in the only remotely practical way -- by preventing people from producing distributing tools designed to bypass copy protection mechanisms. Frankly, I don't think that it will work, and I'm tremendously irritated by the restrictions on what I can do. However, you don't have to be technologically illiterate to back the DMCA -- it codifies probably the most effective way to attack copyright infringement on the Internet. (The question of whether that way is very effective at all is certainly valid.)

In short, none of these groups really know what they are doing.

I disagree.

* Diebold got their money for the voting machines, and is sitting pretty. They know what they're doing.

* MS has gotten interest in their formats (such as wma) as "content protecting", and is using this oomph to go after the electronic music distribution market that Apple currently dominates (and, I would expect, eventually the video market). While they may not succeed, MS has stabbed Apple in the guts before rather nastily, and it's not unreasonable to think that they'll manage to beat Apple again. They know what they're doing.

* The DMCA is a *great* advantage for content provider companies, and pushing it is one of the biggest wins content providers have had for a while. If they move to e-distribution (and away from their current "dying business model"), it will *still* be a powerful club. They know what they're doing.

* Congress got their campaign contributions from the content providing industry. In general, I'd say that they probably know what they're doing. However, enough bad PR has been raised by anti-DMCA activists that a few legislators are working to temper things (such as the legislators that publically opposed the suing of the 14-year-old girl), so perhaps the move was not a good one.

On the whole, only Congress seems to have made a move that might not be in their interests, and that's debatable.

it's redundant because

[Anonymous Coward]

it's only getting worse

Uh..

[WindowLicker916]

I was always told that if a law broke a constitutional amendment it was null. So how could the DMCA take precedense over the 1st amendment?

Re:Uh..

[Anonymous Coward]

The same way that the Supreme Court allows obscenity laws (1st Amendment), Affirmative Action (14th Amendment), Campaign Finance reform laws (1st Amendment, at least the part disallowing politically related TV/radio advertisements 30 days before an election)

Re:Uh..

[chanceH]

and you are just touching on whats explictly prohibited. Not that which the government isn't authroized to do.

Coming soon to a theater near you...

[k4_pacific]

Bruce Willis and Jeremy Irons go head to head in...

"DIE BOLD, with a Vengeance."

A Jerry Bruckhiemer Production

The US government is us....

[innerweb]

...and whenever we say the government is eroding our freedoms, we need to remember that we are not asserting our rights to prevent that erosion. Yep, most elected officials are crooked. Can't get away from that until we remove the huge sums of money from the election process (donations and such). Diebold may or may not be a company seeking to have an unusual influence on elections. More likely, like so many other companies, they are merely seeking to have an unusual hold on some contracts to supply equipment and services.

As far as the Pres and Co. goes, how do you think he got elected. Any president at some point is merely a puppet to certain private powers that be.

Think about it, why do we even need Tort law? Why do we even need contract law? Why do we even need freedom of press laws? Because people as a whole have some pretty sick individuals. And, those individuals (enough of them) tend to gravitate towards positions of power. Once they get some power, then tend to amplify it without regard for who it hurts.

Another way to understand what is happening is to look at the slow poisoning of the planet. What other effect do you think dumping mercury and lead into the atmosphere and rivers could have? What other effect do you think smog could have? What other effect could adding a grossly increased amount of heat trapping gasses into our atmosphere have? The majority of people do not care. If it kills their grandchildren, they will lament, but they will not care until then.

The reason the freedoms are being eroded and that companies get away with what they do is that most people do not want to give up their TV or their computer games. Most people will sit right in the path of that freight train until they get hit (and then cry foul).

The alternative? Fighting back is expensive and counter to the normal persons goal of having a nice quiet life. Another article on /. today mentioned a memo at Microsoft talking about the reason so many people did not abandon MS's poor products was the "lock-in" of people unwilling to put forth the energy to go to a better product.

Most people are like water, they choose the path of least resistance to arrive at the lowest standard of life. Not to be confused with the highest standards of consumerism. Heck, even I do not exert enough energy in the direction of preserving freedoms. I am too busy trying to ensure food is on the table, and my kids have a chance at college. Until we get past some rather serious social issues, the part where we clean up government is not likely to happen, as those in power will be able to keep it by keeping us divided amongst ourselves.

Innereb

Re:FP

[digitalunity]

Fuck you moderators. This is not off topic.

This story is merely a small example of the freedoms we are losing. During the last 55 years, americans have experienced the biggest disillusionment of all time. An extremely young country founded on the ideals of rebels who ran from the imperialist british to create a union of more-free people in less than 200 years has become more socialist and repressive than the british ever were.

The entire political structure of our government encourages only the megalomania-induced power-hungry to become president. There are no incentives to effect true progress. The president has four short years to make a difference. During the last two, the president will spend all of his time marketing himself to the populace for reelection while engaging in back office corporate pandering to keep the ever turning economy gears spinning. If reelection isn't going to happen, then there is no point in doing anything for the future. Look at our budget deficit, SSI shortfall and trade deficit. Each successive presidency has used their childrens money as a high interest credit card in the form of bonds and foreign debts.

Adam Smith, Jefferson, all the greatest financial and political minds of the time knew that the natural tendency of any government is to grow. Growth in many ways. The founding fathers of our country were just men. Everyone now looks at their intentions with respect to the constitution and what they would do(in regards to issues like equal protection for sexual preference and marriage).

Well, wake up people. If our founding fathers were alive today, they would rebel against us. This country hasn't been what they envisioned for a long fucking time. The legal framework was left for us to change our government at will, in accordance with the wishes of the population. The population is so disenchanted with the entire process that they have quit voting entirely.

The problem is self-sustaining though. Simply abstaining from the political process merely lets those in power continue to further their abuses of position. The only way to get people to care anymore is to piss them off.

Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, whatever. What the population doesn't realize is that the two parties down deep aren't that different. They are two parties, who on the surface have their own agendas, but in reality are very similar.

Put me in a room with the president. Tell me I can come out with impunity and I would walk out alone. That wouldn't really change anything. He would just be replaced by another look-alike self-interest only president. The entire system is broken. Does america need a revolution? Again? Yes. Who would do it? No one. They are all too apathetic. Most people I talk to don't seriously think that their vote counts, or that by voting anything will really change. In fact, most people I know that vote choose the lesser of all evils on the ballot.

Before you judge me, at least learn a few things about me.

I am an American.
I hate our government.
I love our country and what it stands for.
I'm patriotic.

And no, these aren't contradictory.

The problem with U.S. politics

[thetorpedodog]

I agree completely. But, the largest problem that I see with the U.S. political system of today is the career politician. The one who runs for office as a job. They're not really representing the voters, they're trying to get re-elected. And in order to do this, they have to advertise. This is where corporate America comes in.

There's lots of money there. And it costs money to advertise (duh!). So if politicians can suck up to corporations (Bush == oil), then they can advertise, and convince the voters that they will do all these wonderful things, and stay in office for another year, and have their job.

So they don't generally work as lawyers or professors or anybody like that, who can fall back on something out of office.

So they struggle to get re-elected, and spin anything (the DMCA and PATRIOT) into a web of cuddly soft lies around these acts, which really could do anything. So long as the public sees it as good, it is good.

Would there be enough support for an anti-DMCA position?
Ask Microsoft. I'm sure they hate it as much as we do *rolls eyes*

The executive is out of control.

[Anonymous Coward]

The history of the United States of America shows one very disturbing trend--an increase in executive power over time.

Until power is returned to Congress and the Courts, the kind of nonsense we've been witnessing for the last two years will continue unabated.

It's the concentration of power that is destroying America, nothing else. We've created a new King, in a country that swore never to have one.

Re:The executive is out of control.

[chanceH]

courts have too much power too.

come to think of it, so does congress.

until we stop putting up with this crap. it'll just get worse.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it would be closer to government sponsored private-sector socialism. Don't worry, it is the perfect balance between capitalism and communism. A little psychology and you can get the entire population running in circles like caged rats.

And make them happy about it.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

There's actually a bill in the House which is trying to waive the constitution, so to speak. More to the point, it would allow Congress to override any Supreme Court decision of unconstitutionality.

H.R. 3920 - To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.

Of course, the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional if it actually somehow was able to get enacted ... :)

pipe dream

[chanceH]

actually this is where the constitution SHOULD EASILY make the DMCA null and void.

that is if the constitution is something more than just ass wiping paper for our government.

Re:FP

[black88]

Not only not off topic, but indeed pertinent to the most important issue at hand: The hijacking of our constitutional republic and it's slow, steady transformation into a sort of Corporate sponsored theocratic dictatorship. In other words: Keep your powder dry.

Mod parent up

[Animats]

He's right. Read what bin Laden has written.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Come now. Posters read? On /.?

Next you'll be suggesting the people who post here aren't all of the same thought and deed, or somesuch. Geesh.

Re:But, you're not a troll pretending to hate Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely a Democrat and a KKK member (sorta like Senator Byrd, Democrat, and his KKK ties)

What Schultz was really saying...

[Tatarize]

"However, EFF's Jason Schultz points out a very real and very scary scenario in which trusted computing combined with the DMCA makes such leaks illegal, regardless of the First Amendment."
==
"There exists a scenario such that the DMCA and trusted computing combined are unconstitutional."

DMCA = Deny My Constutional Appanage

Re:My experience MOD DOWN PARENT

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that you are the person who reposted this - why else point it out but to gain karma? Posting as AC would give you credibility.

Revoking Diebold's ISO 9001:2000 certification

[Animats]

Here's Diebold's ISO 9001:2000 quality certification, issued by BVQI in October 2000. From what's been published about this election technology fiasco, their certification should be revoked. In any case, their certificate may have expired. They're supposed to be re-audited every three years, but their certificate dates from 2000.

This episode casts some doubts on BVQI's validity as a certification service. Their site has no indication that they've ever revoked a certification. Their pitch to companies has no indication that a company can be refused certification. They don't even seem to pull expired certificates.

The auto industry takes ISO 9000 certification of their suppliers seriously. See these standards. Note all the discussion of "revocation", "probation", "non-compliance", and "re-audit". In that world, quality standards violations lose companies the ability to sell to auto companies.

Re:Revoking Diebold's ISO 9001:2000 certification

[rm007]

Having at one point had the dubious distinction of guiding a company that I worked for through the ISO 9001 certification process, then acting as the "quality manager", perhaps I can shed a bit of light. First of all, for all its reputation, ISO 9001 basically certifies that you follow your own processes, if they are bad processes and you can show that you follow them, then you are in compliance with the standard. Even if you are getting customer complaints, if you have and follow procedures to deal with them, then you are in compliance with the standard. If your regular internal and periodic external audits find "discrepancies", you have a period of time to address them, usually at least 6 months and then be re-audited. The whole process of re-auditing, probation and theoretical revocation takes quite a bit of time - and to be honest, the certification companies do not want to take the drastic step because they get paid to do these audits. Re-audits make them money. Revocation looses them a customer. Expect Diebold to remain ISO 9001 certified for some time.

Re:Revoking Diebold's ISO 9001:2000 certification

[0x0d0a]

IMHO, ISO 900x is mostly a money game for certification companies, and a political tool used to exclude various companies from doing business in markets. It sounds good; it doesn't mean much.

Just be sure your dead mans switch

[PotatoHead]

is working nicely. --The reality is that you are likely to get locked up somewhere, silenced and maybe get a minor mention on the tech friendly sites.

Coupla problems I see:

-Your plight will not likely fit into a little sound byte. If it does, the general public will not understand it.

Newsworthy or not, those two combined are a strong incentive for the press to just move on.

Unless you have money or power, not much will be made of a case like that.

Why the switch? Might do some good, but if it doesn't you at least know somebody somewhere knows the truth.

Sorry thoughts really. Probably a bit overkill; however, given the current state of affairs, who knows? It's a scary time --lots of things are out of balance right now.

I thought...

[CountBrass]

That in the case of a conflict between law and the constituion that the constitution over-rode law. So actually it would be the case that the DMCA would get declared unconstituional- or at least not applicable in 1st amendment issues.

So why are the EFF getting their knickers in a twist- sounds like an opportunity to me.

Re:I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they, unlike you, know all too well the reality of the new order.

Whats a First Amendment?

[blanks]

I think I remember my partents talking about that when I was a kid, something about freedom right? Must have been the good old days.

Re:Whats a First Amendment?

[cpghost]

It's interesting that the most important rights are codified in Amendments, and not in the original Constitution. When will be the time, when judges will say: "Hey, that's just an Amendment Right, right? Forget about it."? Scary thought.

Well...it's all in what you're reading isn't it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the DMCA isn't within one limitations of this freedom, and it isn't, then the amendment trumps this law established by congress. A reporter might not be able to bug your law offices without fear of reprisal, but that confidential information is fair game once it's not your exclusive property. It doesn't matter who leaked them or why. Once they're in the hands of the press they only need to be concerned whether they're going to publish them in a way that's representative with what they can reasonably expect to be true. Diebold might be able to get the memos back. But the paper could whip out a summery using cited quotes, possibly painfully comprehensive, and Diebold wouldn't have any claim to that. Read the constitution, there is no right to have all genies put back in their rightful bottles.

That which is fit for the court of public opinion and that which is fit for a court of law are very different things.

It's not like those things haven't happened. The prosecution is forced to send them back, among other things. There's a reason they don't pipe CNN into the jury deliberations for this month's trial of the century.

Certainly in the case of elections and the interests of the public to understand the method by which leaders are elected is far more important than any economic activity incidentally surrounding it. Diebold is hardly a cornerstone of the worlds oldest democracy, but the right of the people to have their vote counted is.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

Good rant but I can't imagine what you think "Socialist" means. The USA is definately not a socialist nation.

5 convicted felons at Diebold management positions

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget...
At least five convicted felons secured management positions at a manufacturer of electronic voting machines

Release notes mirror

[slavemowgli]

The article mentions that release notes used to be available at

http://www.home.comcast.net/~texex/releasenotes. zi p

Does anyone have a copy of those? The file doesn't seem to be there anymore.

IE

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet Explorer - The crack ho of the internet.

I like "Internet Explorer - The Edlin of Web-Browsers".

Only On Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Does opposing opinions get modded as troll.

I hate Diebold, but I hate censorship even more: for if people like whoever modded this down ever got into power, it would be a far worse situation for our country.

Allow? No.. they WANT restrictions

[nurb432]

Forget free speech, its detrimental to the government.

Now they have an easy way to accomplish its suppression, and a lot of people 'approved' it.

Our founders were correct in what they did, ( except giving the very people we were to be protected against the ability to modify the constitution to suit THEIR needs ) but the subsequent generations of government became exactly what they feared...

T.C. or Who Needs A Stinkin' DMCA?

[BlueStrat]

Granted, the DMCA would prevent (legally) decryption of a T.C.-produced/encrypted document, but being able to crack the encryption itself would present large obstacles (think custom-built PCs and a 'cleanroom' (eg: not connected to the net or any other PCs/networks) environment, not to mention the skills/time needed to crack intentionally difficult hashes). T.C. itself would enable the creator/perpetrator to simply send a 'delete' command on that document(s), and every T.C. computer connected to the 'net would happily incinerate all incidences it would *ever* find, as long as the delete command from the document owner still resided on the T.C. authentication servers. It would also be conceivable that a record of each document occurence, along with the PCs'/owners' identity, along with the trail it took to get there could be extracted. That, in my mind, makes the DMCA almost moot in that scenario, in a practical sense, and also scares the beejeezus out of me.

I call shenanigans...

[Cid Highwind]

[i]They have a record of donating to both parties.[/i]

Care to provide us with some references for that assertion? The people spreading "bullshit" about how they only give to Republicans have a nice list of records that substantiate their claim.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[Cid Highwind]

Crap, I meant to use , not [i]. I must be suffering from a phpBB overdose.

"mesário" translated

[Randym]

I know it, because I was "mesário" (election "table" official? election "clerk"? what is a good English translation?)

This is what we would call a "poll worker". But 'election clerk' gets the main idea across nicely.

Babelfish translates "mesário" as 'board member'. In English, that isn't quite correct. Even if you said "election board member", I would think of the Board of Canvassers, which is the entity which *certifies* the elections. That would be the "Regional Electoral Court" to you.

Re:FP

[Money for Nothin']

"Socialist" in economic terms means the government owns the economic output of the nation.

Currently, the U.S. government taxes away approximately 50% of the nation's income. And in economics, income = output.

Thus, the USA is now about 50% socialist.

The grandparent was right -- the U.S. is now FAR more socialist than it was even prior to the Great Depression, and even more so than when the Founding Fathers created this nation.

And it's because we have whiny, entitlement-demanding liberals who think the world owes them a living. It does not.

Phobia

[Short Circuit]

Does the public interest include morality? What if the private life of a person (not necessarily an office holder) can be spun to make the person massively unpopular?

I often relate todays fear of terrorism (and cyberterrorism in particular) with the communist witch hunt of the McCarthy era.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

Man exploits man, capitalism under?

Patriotic Hackers

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanted: Patriotic Hackers

2 can play the game. If Diebold purposely left holes in the voting machine so that they could go in and cheat, then it's not inconceivable that other hackers can go in and prevent Diebold from cheating.

Or, if they can't repair the damage done by Diebold, change all the vote counts to negative vote counts (that shows people that the machine can't be trusted) if the variables are signed, or flip the bits if the variables are unsigned.

Re:My experience MOD DOWN PARENT

[Dash-o-Salt]

...Posts the AC.

I was just curious about it, since I remembered reading the same thing before.

Native speakers are stupid?

[StupidKatz]

I beg to differ. I am a native speaker of (American) English, and while I loathe the study of my own language, I daresay that only willfully ignorant (or just plain stupid) people continue to butcher the spellings of commonly pronounced, but very different, words.