According to this article, in the prosecution of the "Buffalo Six", they plead guilty mainly because the government was threatening to declare them "Enemy Combatants". In such a case, they could be held without trial indefinitely in solitary confinement, or face a military tribunal and possible execution.
Or you can do 7 years (less, with good behavior) knowing you are innocent. What would you do?
The way to do this is to follow the lead of the Senator in Peru, and state that since the data belongs to the people, we need to guarantee that the people will always have access to the data.
To accomplish this, offer a choice. Either the software publisher must open-source any file formats created by them and used by the product, including any attached patents to the specification, or put up a bond equal to 15% of the value of the contract for the next 20 years to cover the cost of data-conversion from the proprietary format to the newest file format at the end of that time. Put in a specific timeframe for implementation of this rule (say, 1 year) in order to get the specifications out into the public domain, and see what happens.
End result: Microsoft (and other proprietary companies) products cost 15% more, but they don't get the money. In addition, it allows opensource products to get their foot in the door, because the file formats will be interoperable.
This is actually very justifiable. I remember reading about how much trouble the Smithsonian is having with data conversion of 10-15 year old data, because the equipment and/or formats aren't available anymore.
What I suspect will happen is that MS will come out with an "Office for Government".. Or set up a subsidiary and licence the formats from them. Any thoughts on that?
Course, even more interesting is that any product with DRM would have to publish that specification as well. They would probably get an exemption in said law, knowing how the entertainment companies have bought the government, but we won't go there.
Just a thought.
NapalmGod
Copyright?
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It seems to me that if they copyright the anti-spyware program, and some other program comes on and modifies it, then they'd have a case for suing the spyware company on the basis of copyright violation.
In any case, it's actually rather easy to fix. Put a memory-resident util that monitors the files on disk, checking the checksum every x number of minutes, and display a popup on the screen if it's modified. Have the memory-resident program put an icon in the systray. Copyright the icon in the systray. Put in the manual "If you don't see the icon in the systray, then you have spyware installed.". If the spyware companies disable the resident program and put the icon back on anyway, you can definitely nail them for copyright violation.:)
Y'know, it shouldn't be this difficult. They're a not-for-profit organization registered in California. The charter is full of legally questionable loopholes (Ever read it? The bit about "the At-Large membership shall not be considered a member according to California law" was my fav). So we need to sue to get the charter enforced. Remember that it still says there are 9 at-large members of the board, even if we only have 5. If we can sue to get the other 4 in, we control half the board... Anyone call the EFF yet?
Not to mention our ability to sue the Department of Commerce for all the "oversight" they're giving.
Heh. Can't wait until Congress hears about it, particularly with Karl's nice quote...
I suspect that this is going to happen if we want it to or not. However, it's possible that, at this stage in the game, the groundrules can be changed.
What if we accepted this, and started thinking of what conditions would make this acceptable to the community at large? If you were crafting a bill with the goal of allowing governments to be able to read encrypted traffic, what restrictions would you have, and how would you implement it?
Personally, I know that the US government (or any other) can have my keys over my dead, cold keyboard. But what about this:
1) "Backdoor" keys are generated on a per-key basis. When I generate a key in PGP (or whatever), it generates a backdoor that indicates which key it's for, and sends it off (see #2).
2) Keys are not held by governments. They are held by not-for-profit 3rd party companies who's job it is to make sure that governmental key requests are legal. The board of said companies are selected by the keyholders (no more ICANNs!!).
3) One company per country. The software will ask which country you are in, and register the key with the registrar for that country.
4) Require the law enforcement agencies to go to an actual judge to get a warrant to get the key. They have to show valid cause. None of this "National Security matter" or FBI Committee.
5) If another country wants the key, they have to approach the local law enforcement for the country that holds the key, who goes to a judge. No out-of-country warrants, and this protects against international spying (Echelon, anyone?).
6) Explicitly ban the FBI or any other agency from monitoring traffic to/from the registrars. No Carnivore allowed. Not allowed to use any keys captured in a wiretap, separate warrant required. No NSA gobbling other nations key traffic.
There's some things that would still need to be worked out, like how to prevent people from registering their keys with, say, Denmark when they are in the US, and how to fund the not-for-profits (Matching funds from the Governments and the software makers? Governments and fees from the encryption user?), but you get the idea.
The:CueCat reader is only on loan to you from Digital:Convergence and may be recalled at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, your possession or control of the:CueCat reader does not transfer any right, title or interest to you in the:CueCat reader.
Now, think about this. You open your mail one day, and find a:CueCat reader. You decide you don't need it and throw it away.
2 months later you get a registered letter from DC saying that they've decided they want it back, and please return it immediately or face a lawsuit for violating the EULA...
I really wish companies would actually hire "Director of Logic" to overrule the lawyers sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure manipulating the price of a stock as you describe would be considered illegal by the SEC..
According to this article, in the prosecution of the "Buffalo Six", they plead guilty mainly because the government was threatening to declare them "Enemy Combatants". In such a case, they could be held without trial indefinitely in solitary confinement, or face a military tribunal and possible execution.
Or you can do 7 years (less, with good behavior) knowing you are innocent. What would you do?
The way to do this is to follow the lead of the Senator in Peru, and state that since the data belongs to the people, we need to guarantee that the people will always have access to the data.
To accomplish this, offer a choice. Either the software publisher must open-source any file formats created by them and used by the product, including any attached patents to the specification, or put up a bond equal to 15% of the value of the contract for the next 20 years to cover the cost of data-conversion from the proprietary format to the newest file format at the end of that time. Put in a specific timeframe for implementation of this rule (say, 1 year) in order to get the specifications out into the public domain, and see what happens.
End result: Microsoft (and other proprietary companies) products cost 15% more, but they don't get the money. In addition, it allows opensource products to get their foot in the door, because the file formats will be interoperable.
This is actually very justifiable. I remember reading about how much trouble the Smithsonian is having with data conversion of 10-15 year old data, because the equipment and/or formats aren't available anymore.
What I suspect will happen is that MS will come out with an "Office for Government".. Or set up a subsidiary and licence the formats from them. Any thoughts on that?
Course, even more interesting is that any product with DRM would have to publish that specification as well. They would probably get an exemption in said law, knowing how the entertainment companies have bought the government, but we won't go there.
Just a thought.
NapalmGod
In any case, it's actually rather easy to fix. Put a memory-resident util that monitors the files on disk, checking the checksum every x number of minutes, and display a popup on the screen if it's modified. Have the memory-resident program put an icon in the systray. Copyright the icon in the systray. Put in the manual "If you don't see the icon in the systray, then you have spyware installed.". If the spyware companies disable the resident program and put the icon back on anyway, you can definitely nail them for copyright violation. :)
Just my $0.02, IANAL, void where prohibited.
-steve
Not to mention our ability to sue the Department of Commerce for all the "oversight" they're giving.
Heh. Can't wait until Congress hears about it, particularly with Karl's nice quote...
I suspect that this is going to happen if we want it to or not. However, it's possible that, at this stage in the game, the groundrules can be changed.
What if we accepted this, and started thinking of what conditions would make this acceptable to the community at large? If you were crafting a bill with the goal of allowing governments to be able to read encrypted traffic, what restrictions would you have, and how would you implement it?
Personally, I know that the US government (or any other) can have my keys over my dead, cold keyboard. But what about this:
1) "Backdoor" keys are generated on a per-key basis. When I generate a key in PGP (or whatever), it generates a backdoor that indicates which key it's for, and sends it off (see #2).
2) Keys are not held by governments. They are held by not-for-profit 3rd party companies who's job it is to make sure that governmental key requests are legal. The board of said companies are selected by the keyholders (no more ICANNs!!).
3) One company per country. The software will ask which country you are in, and register the key with the registrar for that country.
4) Require the law enforcement agencies to go to an actual judge to get a warrant to get the key. They have to show valid cause. None of this "National Security matter" or FBI Committee.
5) If another country wants the key, they have to approach the local law enforcement for the country that holds the key, who goes to a judge. No out-of-country warrants, and this protects against international spying (Echelon, anyone?).
6) Explicitly ban the FBI or any other agency from monitoring traffic to/from the registrars. No Carnivore allowed. Not allowed to use any keys captured in a wiretap, separate warrant required. No NSA gobbling other nations key traffic.
There's some things that would still need to be worked out, like how to prevent people from registering their keys with, say, Denmark when they are in the US, and how to fund the not-for-profits (Matching funds from the Governments and the software makers? Governments and fees from the encryption user?), but you get the idea.
Thoughts?
-NapalmGod
The :CueCat reader is only on loan to you from Digital:Convergence and may be recalled at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, your possession or control of the :CueCat reader does not transfer any right, title or interest to you in the :CueCat reader.
Now, think about this. You open your mail one day, and find a :CueCat reader. You decide you don't need it and throw it away.
2 months later you get a registered letter from DC saying that they've decided they want it back, and please return it immediately or face a lawsuit for violating the EULA...
I really wish companies would actually hire "Director of Logic" to overrule the lawyers sometimes.
Just a thought.
-steve