I even remember older 7 track tapes, and going from 1600 bpi (bits per inch) to 6250 bpi. I may still have a copy of my Masters' thesis lying around on one (in a proprietary mark-up format: Formal (Hi AJWM!)). Fat lot of good it does.
Sure, no crime was committed. I asked the question rather rhetoriclly and know damn well that online polls are notoriously inaccurate.
However, does this mean that intentionally attempting to sway their results is not somehow wrong? I think it is wrong, espescially when the poll results reflect on the party trying to cheat. Follow me here...
Microsoft obviously thought the poll had enough influence that it tried to sway the results. IOW, they thought people actually took the poll results as statistically significant -- otherwhise why try to skew them? Given that, they tried to affect the opinions that would arise by clearly making the results even less representative of reality than they otherwise might be.
Since they had a vested interest in creating a false perception, and proceeded to try to do so, I think they have acted fraudulently.
Of course, IANAL and that is just my opinion, but I think it a reasonable one.
I pay around $80 a month for 768 kb/s downstream, 384 kb/s upstream to Internet America. $15 of that is for a dedicated pair they lease from SW Bell because, at 15.6 kft from the CO, ADSL is not guaranteed to work piggybacked on a POTS line.
But even at $65 a month, that's way too expensive for most people.
Now, it is true, that I can get SW Bell's offering for around $50/month, but it is PPPoE hell with lousy TOS (in my opinion) -- my neighbor suffers with this.
Airmail.net (Internet America) has no problem with me running an "smtp" server to sink my email (of course, they appreciate that I do not relay) or any other server as long as I do not have "excessive" upstream bandwidth. Other ISPs freak at the mere suggestion of doing something like that. On the PPPoE issue, "we looked at that and held our noses" was their unoffocial comment. SOLD!
I'd like something like that with HD capabilities too, but I suspect that they're trying to make a mass market item -- pitched to people with "normal" TV.
Then again, that tactic might backfire: the kind of people who want a media server probably are likely to have HDTV receivers already (or at least a large fraction of them are).
The people who write and produce books are obviously happy that this does not erode their profits, or they would have tried to outlaw second-hand bookshops and libraries long ago.
They tried. The supreme court told them to go fuck themselves (well, no, not in those words, but publishers' arrogance at the time certainly deserved that kind of derision).
Yes, I do think that I'm on fairly safe ground here. It's not like I want to be arrested and become the next anti-DMCA poster child: I have a nice home, job, family, kids and generally live a comfortable life.
But, at the same time, I know damn well that such comforts exist because of the liberty I and other have (to engage in trade, associatation, and other peaceful activities). Such liberties have to be defended, and in this case, damnit, I (a) run [GNU/]Linux (not really trusting Windows, and prefering the stability and order of a Unix-like O/S), (b) bought the family a few DVDs (despite my general boycott) for Christmas, and (c) got stuck with a broken DVD player, and don't want to be inconvenienced by a stupid law that makes non-harmful actions illegal. In short, it isn't a hypothetical debate for me any more -- I've got movies and want to watch them!
If I've lost the trivial liberty to watch a movie that I've paid to watch, what other liberties will follow? This one, at least, can be defended with peaceful civil disobedience, without resorting to violence at the outset. It strikes me as a good pragmatic example of defending an abstract principle.
But I'm sure if I am arrested, it won't be for my pragmatic actions, it will likely be because of my principles. But the bottom line is that I can no longer silently live in a world where peaceful activities are made illegal at an alarming rate. I am compelled to resist. It is unnatural to deny a desire for freedom for one's self that is not at the expense of another.
The extreme case that you pose has happend many times in history, and it has never been stopped by civil disobediance.
However, civil disobedience has turned the tide against less extreme abuses, witness the whole Civil Rights movement. It appears an appropriate course of action here. In this case, it means using DeCSS and it's derivatives freely, and publicly, but not to circumvent legitimate copyright interests (i.e. to rip movies from DVDs to give to others who do not have them already).
...while "federal interest computer" could be read to extend to any computer involved in interstate commerce, it's still pretty hard for you to crack stuff on your own box without your authorization.
True enough, but is the CSS "computer" in the DVDROM drive mine to hack? The DMCA suggests that it might not be. Furthermore, even if I can hack for my own use, my disclosure, even briefly, of how I did it, with libdvdcss.so, constitutes "trafficing in a circumvention device" (since, in this networked world, identifying the tool is tantamount to providing it).
About the only defense I can think of relates to (a) interoperability issues and (b) the fact that libdvdcss.so is designed as a player plugin (though it wouldn't take much to use it in a ripper).
In Texas at least a you are justified in using force (even deadly force if necesary) in self defense against a police officer if they are using undue force against you and you are not otherwise resisting arrest.
Since I live in Texas, this is good to know (and about what I figured and with which I agree).
You are not legally or morally justified in using force aginast a police officer attempting to make a legal arrest. In the case of an unjust law the time to make your stand is not when you are being arrested, but when you are tried in court. This is both your legal and moral obligation.
If the law required killing jews, assasinating police officers would not change the law. Killing police officers *might* save a few lives (and could only be justified if you were only killing officers attempting to enforce this law), but would not get the law changed. So most of the jews would eventually be dead anyway.
Dunno, though that would certainly be a state of civil war, if it came to such a hypothetical scenario. You can't change or fight the law within a corrupt legal framework -- force is the only option, but, of course, a last resort. The catch-22 is knowing when, objectively, the law is corrupt. Massive civil unrest is probably a good indicator of this, and no, we are not there yet, but I suspect we are closer than we'd like to admit.
Agreed that liberty must be defended, but we currently live with a system that is designed to protect our liberties, and provide redress for wrongs. As long as the system is intact and functioning violence is neither necesary nor justified. Violence is only justified when there is not a non-violent solution.
No argument from me there.
Still, the thought of being arrested, jailed, and abused, in response to a relatively peaceful act of civil disobedience (watching a movie I paid to watch, albeit using a tool that could be perverted for crime), does make one wonder if the law is corrupt already -- clearly such a punishment can not reasonably fit the "crime" -- and the slippery slope of forceful defense justified.
That's part of the problem here: if it were a question of "break the law, pay the fine" no act of violence could be justified -- you break the law in protest, you pay the fine, and demonstrate your reasoned opposition to the law. But here, you watch a movie, and with only a little stretched interpretation of the law, you might find yourself facing a firing squad for treason. DMCA violation -> hacking -> cyber-terrorism -> terrorism -> treason -> death sentence. Suddenly the thought of dying while resisting arrest under protest because of fear of the possible punishment doesn't seam so unreasonable (the "I can't take it anymore syndrome") Once you reach that point, why not take others along for the ride that would have been instruments of your demise?
Under present circumstances, such reasoning is born of paranoia, and rational reexamination rejects making such a stand. Still, the present legal climate encourages rather than discourages such paranoia in the first place. And that can't be a good thing.
"Ooooh! Look at the nice shiny hook with the worm on it!" (OK, I'll bite;-)
A reasoned bite at that, thank you!
IANAL, but I believe you can be held for 7 days for any reason.
Yes. Whether that is constitutional is questionable, but I accept it as given. IANAL, either.
Military tribunals require that you be charged with terrorist activity.
Didn't the Patriot Act, or one of the copy-cat Acts, make hacking a computer system to break security an act of treason? I certainly did do that. Of course, the computer was mine, the security was on something I was allowed to retrieve to view, and dammit yes, the law is way too blunt.
As the stated intent of your use of DeCSS was not to change government policy by intimidation and/or the endangerment of the lives of American citizens, it's not a terrorist action. A DMCA violation, perhaps (though you can bring up the interoperability defence in court), but not a terrorist action. You are therefore not subject to a military tribunal.
I do wonder, though, if the DMCA/Patriot Act combination make it one. Oh, and I did not use DeCSS, per se, but rather a derivative: libdvdcss.so.
(Which is a pity, because I have a hunch that since the DMCA isn't exactly part of the UCMJ, you'd get off scot-free at a military tribunal. "JAG, there is nothing Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits the playback of DVDs on Linux. Now get these computer freaks the hell offa my aircraft carrier!";-)
yes,:->
First, if attempts are made to arrest me over this, should I resist -- forcefully, if necessary?
AIANAL (Again, I Am Not A Lawyer), but "No."
Resisting arrest - even unawlful arrest - is unlawful. The reason for this is that Officer Friendly is just doing his job, and his job is hard enough as it is. Cooperate fully with Officer Friendly. (He's not the guy who's at fault, he's just the guy tasked with the dirty work of hauling j00r 4zz into court. He has nothing to do with your innocence or guilt at trial - hence the phrase "tell it to the judge".)
One would think so, but does that apply in extremis? Again, IANAL, but doesn't the Constitution permit defense against unconstitutional restraint of exercise of constitutional rights, even if the law has not yet been struk down? IOW, you can't be found guilty of breaking a law that is subsequently found to be unconstitutional -- the law never had force to begin with. Certainly, I could be tried in abstentia. Of course, under normal circumstances, cooperation with police is usually a good idea, yes.
The second point is should I discard this thin shield of public slashdot anonymity.
That's between you and your conscience. Can't help you there.
Well, fate, or rather my haste intervened -- I did not post anon.
IANAEE (I Am Not An Ethicist, Either), and this is a matter for your conscience, but I'd suggest that turning in your friends for DMCA violations, without asking them in advance if they wish to join your campaign of civil disobedience, is an unethical thing to do.
Noted. Not all the people I told were my friends:-).
Indeed. It is my love for the principles in the Bill of Rights and Constitution that, to a large degree, forces me to not stand idle and peacefully disobey laws inconsistent with them.
As a Canadian, I stood idle while my countrymen permitted the government to amend the consitution to give them power over the highest court in the land. My political action ineffective (Canadians are like vishysoise: cold, half-French, and hard to stir), I found the best course of action was to leave and take my tax dollars with me. The U.S. seams to like them just fine.
Rosa Parks is one heck of a hero, IMHO. However, would her actions have had the same effect without the more millitant Black Panthers?
It strikes me that forceful vigilanteeism gains legitimacy when it is in synergy with widespread civil disobedience: Vigilantees are the only army the disenfranchied have.
Of course, armed resistance is a last resort. The best answer I can give for when it is acceptable (based on my posting) is when many agree with it's use -- but then you are in a state of civil war. And no, I don't think it is acceptable yet. I hope it never becomes acceptable
Actually, the law is vague on this. The INS does a pretty good job of scrutinizing our right to enter the U.S. at every entry, presumably because it is hard to get undesireables out once here.
However, I ask the rhetorical question for two reasons:
1) Liberty needs to be defended, to the extreme, if necessary, otherwise it is meaningless.
2) One can imagine the law so corrupt that killing police saves lives. What if "the law" required the slaughtering of Jews (yes, I'm striking a nerve on purpose) -- would it be wrong to kill any police "officer" who tried to put that law into practice? I think not.
Clearly, the dilema is that the law stops working, and people take it into their own hands. Often, they soothe their conscious by convincing themselves that they answer a "higher law", but that argument is rather weak, and the defense of criminals everywhere.
Should such extreme action ever be justified in the name of as abstract a concept as liberty? I think so, the question is, "When?" Clearly, I think the answer to date, in this circumstance is, "Not now."
I downloaded a bunch of video for linux related code, include xine, libdvdread, and libdvdcss, and, hot damn!, I can now view encrypted DVDs on my Linux box.
I intentionally, and deliberately, cracked the encryption mechanism on the DVD I had purchased as a gift for my wife, so I could play it on our computer while our new DVD player (which suffered a fit of infant mortality) was in the shop for repair. Wary of using Microsoft Windows, because of all the recent security and spyware issues, I chose to make it work under Red Hat Linux 7.2.
It is my understanding that, under current U.S. law, this makes me a terrorist. Because I am a foriegner working here on a valid work visa, I can be held without charge for up to 7 days and tried by a military tribunal for this action. While I would consider such actions against me unconstitutional, it is not for me to interpret U.S. law, but the courts. And this brings up two issues of importance.
First, if attempts are made to arrest me over this, should I resist -- forcefully, if necessary? Should I even consider killing, or trying to kill, anyone who tries to arrest me for these actions which I believe harm no one and are perfectly consitutional? In short, should I take the law into my own hands? I think, at this point, the answer is no: there may be a time for such vigilante justice when large numbers of people believe the law to be wrong, and letting mob rule dictate defacto law, but that time has not yet come: people are not (yet) being arrested by the thousands for watching DVDs under Linux. I think I would neither resit nor assist any arresting officers -- I'd let them carry me away, though.
The second point is should I discard this thin shield of public slashdot anonymity? After all, if I truely believe my actions to be correct, I should have nothing to hide, even as the short-term consequences (i.e. arrest, incarcertation) might be unpleasant. Surely the eventual exposure of the naked media industry emperor justifies public criticism and civil disobedience. If not I, then who? But, a voice has to be heard to have effect, and the attention an imminent public confession of my actions might garner would be a positive thing. I will keep them guessing for a while longer.
Finally, I have not been altogether secret about all this. While not publicly announcing it to the world, I have told plenty of individuals what I am doing, and would have no hesitation in identifying them to the authorities if I am arrested -- after all they disobeyed the law as well, by not turning me in. Their subsequent arrests, or not, would, either way, further draw attention to the lunacy that now pervades a country which was built on that most noble of ideals: liberty.
Responsible? That's debatable, of course. You can't have responsibility without the freedom to chose one course of action over another, and the American voter does seam rather impotent these days.
Perhaps the question should be, "Will the citizens of a country be held accountable, to some outside standard, for their government's actions?" And to that, I think the answer is a resounding YES!
Sooner or later, if someone is pissed off by what you do, or what they perceive you as doing, they will seek to do you harm. You have a choice: refrain from the action that offends, or prepare to defend against the attack that will come. The choice depends, of course, on one's perception of risk and fair play.
The notion of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" certainly seams to be a good start at identifying "fair play" even as it can be interpreted differently by the parties involved. I am not a religeous person, but that mantra does seam to pervade many of the world's prevelent faiths and generally comes off as a "good idea".
But, against that standard, I think we can agree that the U.S.A. has flexed its muscles in ways that it would not like to have flexed against it, and thus has violated that golden rule. Does it come as a surprise then that this pisses some people off? And that some of those who are pissed off might managage to express that by killing a few thousand people in a rather public and spectacular fashion?
Right or wrong doesn't come into it: piss people off and you run an increased risk of dying. This does not mean that one should roll over for every tin-pot dictator, but it does mean that one should examine one's government's actions and decide if they truly serve one's best interests and security.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. I have more L1 cache than my first machine had external storage.
I even remember older 7 track tapes, and going from 1600 bpi (bits per inch) to 6250 bpi. I may still have a copy of my Masters' thesis lying around on one (in a proprietary mark-up format: Formal (Hi AJWM!)). Fat lot of good it does.
However, does this mean that intentionally attempting to sway their results is not somehow wrong? I think it is wrong, espescially when the poll results reflect on the party trying to cheat. Follow me here...
Microsoft obviously thought the poll had enough influence that it tried to sway the results. IOW, they thought people actually took the poll results as statistically significant -- otherwhise why try to skew them? Given that, they tried to affect the opinions that would arise by clearly making the results even less representative of reality than they otherwise might be.
Since they had a vested interest in creating a false perception, and proceeded to try to do so, I think they have acted fraudulently.
Of course, IANAL and that is just my opinion, but I think it a reasonable one.
Or, as my young daughter would put it, "Phhhbt! Na-na-na poo poo!" which seams strangely more appropriate.
Sorry, but I had to indulge that bit of glee.
I pay around $80 a month for 768 kb/s downstream, 384 kb/s upstream to Internet America. $15 of that is for a dedicated pair they lease from SW Bell because, at 15.6 kft from the CO, ADSL is not guaranteed to work piggybacked on a POTS line.
But even at $65 a month, that's way too expensive for most people.
Now, it is true, that I can get SW Bell's offering for around $50/month, but it is PPPoE hell with lousy TOS (in my opinion) -- my neighbor suffers with this.
Airmail.net (Internet America) has no problem with me running an "smtp" server to sink my email (of course, they appreciate that I do not relay) or any other server as long as I do not have "excessive" upstream bandwidth. Other ISPs freak at the mere suggestion of doing something like that. On the PPPoE issue, "we looked at that and held our noses" was their unoffocial comment. SOLD!
In short, I am a satisfied customer.
I'd like something like that with HD capabilities too, but I suspect that they're trying to make a mass market item -- pitched to people with "normal" TV.
Then again, that tactic might backfire: the kind of people who want a media server probably are likely to have HDTV receivers already (or at least a large fraction of them are).
They tried. The supreme court told them to go fuck themselves (well, no, not in those words, but publishers' arrogance at the time certainly deserved that kind of derision).
Go read up on the "doctrine of first sale".
I tend to agree but I don't know if that's a reason to be joyful or depressed.
But, at the same time, I know damn well that such comforts exist because of the liberty I and other have (to engage in trade, associatation, and other peaceful activities). Such liberties have to be defended, and in this case, damnit, I (a) run [GNU/]Linux (not really trusting Windows, and prefering the stability and order of a Unix-like O/S), (b) bought the family a few DVDs (despite my general boycott) for Christmas, and (c) got stuck with a broken DVD player, and don't want to be inconvenienced by a stupid law that makes non-harmful actions illegal. In short, it isn't a hypothetical debate for me any more -- I've got movies and want to watch them!
If I've lost the trivial liberty to watch a movie that I've paid to watch, what other liberties will follow? This one, at least, can be defended with peaceful civil disobedience, without resorting to violence at the outset. It strikes me as a good pragmatic example of defending an abstract principle.
But I'm sure if I am arrested, it won't be for my pragmatic actions, it will likely be because of my principles. But the bottom line is that I can no longer silently live in a world where peaceful activities are made illegal at an alarming rate. I am compelled to resist. It is unnatural to deny a desire for freedom for one's self that is not at the expense of another.
However, civil disobedience has turned the tide against less extreme abuses, witness the whole Civil Rights movement. It appears an appropriate course of action here. In this case, it means using DeCSS and it's derivatives freely, and publicly, but not to circumvent legitimate copyright interests (i.e. to rip movies from DVDs to give to others who do not have them already).
True enough, but is the CSS "computer" in the DVDROM drive mine to hack? The DMCA suggests that it might not be. Furthermore, even if I can hack for my own use, my disclosure, even briefly, of how I did it, with libdvdcss.so, constitutes "trafficing in a circumvention device" (since, in this networked world, identifying the tool is tantamount to providing it).
About the only defense I can think of relates to (a) interoperability issues and (b) the fact that libdvdcss.so is designed as a player plugin (though it wouldn't take much to use it in a ripper).
Since I live in Texas, this is good to know (and about what I figured and with which I agree).
You are not legally or morally justified in using force aginast a police officer attempting to make a legal arrest. In the case of an unjust law the time to make your stand is not when you are being arrested, but when you are tried in court. This is both your legal and moral obligation.If the law required killing jews, assasinating police officers would not change the law. Killing police officers *might* save a few lives (and could only be justified if you were only killing officers attempting to enforce this law), but would not get the law changed. So most of the jews would eventually be dead anyway.
Dunno, though that would certainly be a state of civil war, if it came to such a hypothetical scenario. You can't change or fight the law within a corrupt legal framework -- force is the only option, but, of course, a last resort. The catch-22 is knowing when, objectively, the law is corrupt. Massive civil unrest is probably a good indicator of this, and no, we are not there yet, but I suspect we are closer than we'd like to admit.
Agreed that liberty must be defended, but we currently live with a system that is designed to protect our liberties, and provide redress for wrongs. As long as the system is intact and functioning violence is neither necesary nor justified. Violence is only justified when there is not a non-violent solution.
No argument from me there.
Still, the thought of being arrested, jailed, and abused, in response to a relatively peaceful act of civil disobedience (watching a movie I paid to watch, albeit using a tool that could be perverted for crime), does make one wonder if the law is corrupt already -- clearly such a punishment can not reasonably fit the "crime" -- and the slippery slope of forceful defense justified.
That's part of the problem here: if it were a question of "break the law, pay the fine" no act of violence could be justified -- you break the law in protest, you pay the fine, and demonstrate your reasoned opposition to the law. But here, you watch a movie, and with only a little stretched interpretation of the law, you might find yourself facing a firing squad for treason. DMCA violation -> hacking -> cyber-terrorism -> terrorism -> treason -> death sentence. Suddenly the thought of dying while resisting arrest under protest because of fear of the possible punishment doesn't seam so unreasonable (the "I can't take it anymore syndrome") Once you reach that point, why not take others along for the ride that would have been instruments of your demise?
Under present circumstances, such reasoning is born of paranoia, and rational reexamination rejects making such a stand. Still, the present legal climate encourages rather than discourages such paranoia in the first place. And that can't be a good thing.
A reasoned bite at that, thank you!
IANAL, but I believe you can be held for 7 days for any reason.
Yes. Whether that is constitutional is questionable, but I accept it as given. IANAL, either.
Military tribunals require that you be charged with terrorist activity.
Didn't the Patriot Act, or one of the copy-cat Acts, make hacking a computer system to break security an act of treason? I certainly did do that. Of course, the computer was mine, the security was on something I was allowed to retrieve to view, and dammit yes, the law is way too blunt.
As the stated intent of your use of DeCSS was not to change government policy by intimidation and/or the endangerment of the lives of American citizens, it's not a terrorist action. A DMCA violation, perhaps (though you can bring up the interoperability defence in court), but not a terrorist action. You are therefore not subject to a military tribunal.
I do wonder, though, if the DMCA/Patriot Act combination make it one. Oh, and I did not use DeCSS, per se, but rather a derivative: libdvdcss.so.
(Which is a pity, because I have a hunch that since the DMCA isn't exactly part of the UCMJ, you'd get off scot-free at a military tribunal. "JAG, there is nothing Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits the playback of DVDs on Linux. Now get these computer freaks the hell offa my aircraft carrier!";-)
yes, :->
First, if attempts are made to arrest me over this, should I resist -- forcefully, if necessary?
AIANAL (Again, I Am Not A Lawyer), but "No."
Resisting arrest - even unawlful arrest - is unlawful. The reason for this is that Officer Friendly is just doing his job, and his job is hard enough as it is. Cooperate fully with Officer Friendly. (He's not the guy who's at fault, he's just the guy tasked with the dirty work of hauling j00r 4zz into court. He has nothing to do with your innocence or guilt at trial - hence the phrase "tell it to the judge".)
One would think so, but does that apply in extremis? Again, IANAL, but doesn't the Constitution permit defense against unconstitutional restraint of exercise of constitutional rights, even if the law has not yet been struk down? IOW, you can't be found guilty of breaking a law that is subsequently found to be unconstitutional -- the law never had force to begin with. Certainly, I could be tried in abstentia. Of course, under normal circumstances, cooperation with police is usually a good idea, yes.
The second point is should I discard this thin shield of public slashdot anonymity.
That's between you and your conscience. Can't help you there.
Well, fate, or rather my haste intervened -- I did not post anon.
IANAEE (I Am Not An Ethicist, Either), and this is a matter for your conscience, but I'd suggest that turning in your friends for DMCA violations, without asking them in advance if they wish to join your campaign of civil disobedience, is an unethical thing to do.
Noted. Not all the people I told were my friends :-).
The women are fat, yes, but that is a good thing when it's -40 outside.
You know, possesion of that book could probably get you arrested in a number of places, for having child pornography.
As a Canadian, I stood idle while my countrymen permitted the government to amend the consitution to give them power over the highest court in the land. My political action ineffective (Canadians are like vishysoise: cold, half-French, and hard to stir), I found the best course of action was to leave and take my tax dollars with me. The U.S. seams to like them just fine.
It strikes me that forceful vigilanteeism gains legitimacy when it is in synergy with widespread civil disobedience: Vigilantees are the only army the disenfranchied have.
Of course, armed resistance is a last resort. The best answer I can give for when it is acceptable (based on my posting) is when many agree with it's use -- but then you are in a state of civil war. And no, I don't think it is acceptable yet. I hope it never becomes acceptable
Actually, the law is vague on this. The INS does a pretty good job of scrutinizing our right to enter the U.S. at every entry, presumably because it is hard to get undesireables out once here.
However, I ask the rhetorical question for two reasons:
1) Liberty needs to be defended, to the extreme, if necessary, otherwise it is meaningless.
2) One can imagine the law so corrupt that killing police saves lives. What if "the law" required the slaughtering of Jews (yes, I'm striking a nerve on purpose) -- would it be wrong to kill any police "officer" who tried to put that law into practice? I think not.
Clearly, the dilema is that the law stops working, and people take it into their own hands. Often, they soothe their conscious by convincing themselves that they answer a "higher law", but that argument is rather weak, and the defense of criminals everywhere.
Should such extreme action ever be justified in the name of as abstract a concept as liberty? I think so, the question is, "When?" Clearly, I think the answer to date, in this circumstance is, "Not now."
Doh!
I downloaded a bunch of video for linux related code, include xine, libdvdread, and libdvdcss, and, hot damn!, I can now view encrypted DVDs on my Linux box.
I intentionally, and deliberately, cracked the encryption mechanism on the DVD I had purchased as a gift for my wife, so I could play it on our computer while our new DVD player (which suffered a fit of infant mortality) was in the shop for repair. Wary of using Microsoft Windows, because of all the recent security and spyware issues, I chose to make it work under Red Hat Linux 7.2.
It is my understanding that, under current U.S. law, this makes me a terrorist. Because I am a foriegner working here on a valid work visa, I can be held without charge for up to 7 days and tried by a military tribunal for this action. While I would consider such actions against me unconstitutional, it is not for me to interpret U.S. law, but the courts. And this brings up two issues of importance.
First, if attempts are made to arrest me over this, should I resist -- forcefully, if necessary? Should I even consider killing, or trying to kill, anyone who tries to arrest me for these actions which I believe harm no one and are perfectly consitutional? In short, should I take the law into my own hands? I think, at this point, the answer is no: there may be a time for such vigilante justice when large numbers of people believe the law to be wrong, and letting mob rule dictate defacto law, but that time has not yet come: people are not (yet) being arrested by the thousands for watching DVDs under Linux. I think I would neither resit nor assist any arresting officers -- I'd let them carry me away, though.
The second point is should I discard this thin shield of public slashdot anonymity? After all, if I truely believe my actions to be correct, I should have nothing to hide, even as the short-term consequences (i.e. arrest, incarcertation) might be unpleasant. Surely the eventual exposure of the naked media industry emperor justifies public criticism and civil disobedience. If not I, then who? But, a voice has to be heard to have effect, and the attention an imminent public confession of my actions might garner would be a positive thing. I will keep them guessing for a while longer.
Finally, I have not been altogether secret about all this. While not publicly announcing it to the world, I have told plenty of individuals what I am doing, and would have no hesitation in identifying them to the authorities if I am arrested -- after all they disobeyed the law as well, by not turning me in. Their subsequent arrests, or not, would, either way, further draw attention to the lunacy that now pervades a country which was built on that most noble of ideals: liberty.
Perhaps the question should be, "Will the citizens of a country be held accountable, to some outside standard, for their government's actions?" And to that, I think the answer is a resounding YES!
Sooner or later, if someone is pissed off by what you do, or what they perceive you as doing, they will seek to do you harm. You have a choice: refrain from the action that offends, or prepare to defend against the attack that will come. The choice depends, of course, on one's perception of risk and fair play.
The notion of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" certainly seams to be a good start at identifying "fair play" even as it can be interpreted differently by the parties involved. I am not a religeous person, but that mantra does seam to pervade many of the world's prevelent faiths and generally comes off as a "good idea".
But, against that standard, I think we can agree that the U.S.A. has flexed its muscles in ways that it would not like to have flexed against it, and thus has violated that golden rule. Does it come as a surprise then that this pisses some people off? And that some of those who are pissed off might managage to express that by killing a few thousand people in a rather public and spectacular fashion?
Right or wrong doesn't come into it: piss people off and you run an increased risk of dying. This does not mean that one should roll over for every tin-pot dictator, but it does mean that one should examine one's government's actions and decide if they truly serve one's best interests and security.
This may be crass, but the term kissing ass comes to mind.