Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
-- Will program for bandwidth
...o'er the land of the controlled...and the home of the oppressed.
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?
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?
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.
This space is not for rent.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
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.
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.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
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.
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!
# They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Fran
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.
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
'Tis a noble thought.
/. 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".
Of course, not very realistic at all. There might be some outcry on
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.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
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?
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
How ya like dat?
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
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
That is what is so scary about the Bush administration...
The scariest thing about Bush administration is actually George Bush himself.
The Erogenous Zone
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.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
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.
May we never see th
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.