Yes, very sad. Judging from reaction to this and similar stories, a great many Slashdot readers believe that the law should treat them differently and that they aren't responsible for their actions. Probably attributable to Slashdot demographics, but the attitude risks provoking a lot of restrictive legislation.
This makes as much sense as setting fire to the local police department just to test its fire alarm.
You have only this outfit's word about what they did. Who's to know that they aren't a front for a foreign power or other group? (It does happen, you know.)
Lots of vulnerabilities exist everywhere, not just computer networks. Unsolicited and unauthorized attacks on another's property is a crime.
Violating the law in private is pretty stupid, too. And if you feel inclined to engage in a little civil disobedience because you're "mounting a case against an unfair law", put a good defense attorney on retainer and be prepared for jail time. Laws aren't struck down as unconstitutional all that often. Be prepared to wait out the appeals process.
Just telling the court that you don't "believe" in the law will only produce passing annoyance. Citzenship incurs a legal obligation to obey the laws, or pay the price.
Not to rant, but most other countries behave the same, or worse. I've lived in 3 countries in addition to the U.S. Only one (the UK) actually held free elections, and I don't see many UK politicos running for sainthood.
...the businesses selling all that outrageously expensive media time -- and also donating big money to politicians -- are usually the same media corporations raising a fuss about copyright infringement. In the end, it gets back to oligarchic and monopolistic control of technology versus dispersed control of technology.
It isn't the legal system, it's our political system. It is outrageously expensive to run for office here. Even candidates for House seats -- like Grubb -- often spend 7-figure sums for advertising and other campaign publicity. Get into state-wide or national offices and the cost escalates. We can't seem to get our collective head around real campaign finance reform, and spend endless cycles of legislative energy talking it to death.
End result: If your running for office, or in office planning for the next campaign, the first thing on your mind is going to be paying for it. Whether or not that constitutes bribery is, I suppose, a matter of definition, but there's no argument that it influences politicians behavior to the detriment of the public.
As for lobbying: If you want a politician to pay attention to you, the first thing you have to do is get in front of his or her face. I.e., on the calendar and in the office. By and large, any organization or "movement" with one or a few specific interests it wants to push isn't going to sway votes in Washington unless they have an office in D.C. actively working on their behalf. (Yep, that's called "special interests".) Of course, when a there's a genuine groundswell of opinion shifting with a constituency on a particular issue, even novice politicians pay attention (or lose the next election.)
So... i agree with Plotkin and Lessig that if those opposed to the DMCA/RIAA/MPAA/Berman et al legislation don't start playing the game, there's little chance that many politicians will be moved to change their votes. They would if this issue becomes visibly important to the broad U.S. electorate, but that kind of awareness isn't there . Elections are still won on bread-and-butter issues. Copyright infringement isn't one of those issues.
Agree that copyright law in the States has been warped to the strong benefit of corporations who have artists under contract, and doesn't serve the purpose it was intended to serve. Ditto on DMCA, RIAA and all that. Also think commercially successful "artists" like the money as much as the rest of us, and would probably think twice about a rollback of copyright to something considerably shorter than their lifespan. With exception, too, I suspect authors and entertainers who begrudge the money the media companies keep out of sales of their work would quite happily keep it all if the corporation disappeared. (I guess I don't believe that "artist" equates to "saint".)
To be more accurate, the ruling says the DoJ's suggested interpretation of the law was incorrect. The court explicitly stated that its ruling was not made on Constitutional grounds. The court, rather unnecessarily, also noted the Congress is free to amend the FISA legislation.
Right. Although U.S. lives would be put at risk if FISA proceedings were public, many people here jump to the ill-founded conclusion that Clinton and/or Bush set up some sort of secret tribunal in order to toss Americans into dungeons without due process.
Remember, FISA was created in response to abuses of power in the Nixon adminstration. By openly reprimanding the DoJ, the court is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. It has also effectively placed the dispute over the extent of the DoJ's ability to share FISA-derived intelligence data with criminal investigations back to Congress, where it belongs.
>> "Destroying government property (or most other uses of violence / force by non-uniformed combatants) in order to change policy is the definition of terrorism. "
Dunno if that's the precise legal definition of terrorism in the U.S., or any other country, but let's just say that odds are actions that meet that definition are illegal.
"Non-uniformed" is often a shorthand reference to combatants who are not part of any formal military apparatus of a recognized sovereign state.
I read the opinion, and my question still stands. Many posters here seem surprised and outraged that the FBI surveils and wiretaps anyone, much less people believed to be involved in foreign intelligence activities. I'm not at all surprised that Ashcroft's DoJ wants to push FISA to its limits and beyond, but the court has behaved in a responsible and appropriate fashion.
The process of declaring someone an enemy combatant is subject to legal review, too. If you believe someone is being held as an enemy combatant without cause, get a lawyer and go to work.
In my book, if you carry arms against the U.S., you're a combatant and you're an enemy.
FISA has the power to enforce its findings by simply rejecting requests for warrants. The DoJ, just like you, has the ability to go to court if they think FISA is misintrepreting the Patriot Act. That's what Ashcroft is doing, in an attempt to allow evidence collected via FISA-style taps to be passed along to criminal investigations. Whether or nor you agree with Ashcroft, the balance of powers remains in effect.
you cant exactly make wiretap info available to the public.
No, because that would defeat the purpose of the tap.
it is unfortunate because it allows people like the FBI to do these things.
Please name another U.S. organization charged with federal law enforcement. Who should we trust? You?
but if i were an enterprising individual, id just simply get all of the wiretapping records and sell the service of alerting mobsters that their phone is tapped.
First, you can't get the records. Second, if you did, you'd follow the mobsters into court.
To the best of my knowledge, FISA is not a trial court. It simply provides a secure means for law enforcement agencies to get legal approval to conduct surveillance in certain cases within the U.S. The "secure" part is critical, because lives, one way or another, are often at risk.
If someone is charged and brought to trial, it'll be in the press.
Judge Kotar-Kotelly is one of the powers-that-be. The FISA court seems to be doing what it's supposed to do, and playing a little politics in the press by releasing this report. Good for them.
FISA has been around since the Nixon administration, and was established to curb abuses at that time. It's been frequently discussd in the press since 9-11. It isn't a Star Chamber and it isn't secret. It meets and adjudicates in secret (for good reason), just like thousands of government and private-sector meetings every day.
Here's a question: Would you rather see the FBI wiretap anyone at will, without being compelled to get approval first, or rather see them compelled to convince a court that they have cause to do that?
I suspect NASA would indeed pay someone to build Saturn-5 class boosters if Congress would fund it. The problem is that the only reasonable things to do with that much lift capability is to return to the Moon, go to Mars, and put a real space station in orbit, not the little mini-station we've got now.
No one in a leadership position in the U.S. has the vision and political will to commit to this, so don't hold your breath.
Balloons only work in the atmosphere. Maximum altitude is around 20 miles. Even if a balloon could reach an altitude safe for orbital flight -- say, 100 miles -- it would fall right back to Earth because it has no propulsion system capable of reaching orbital speed.
Methinks Apple and MS long ago reached a mutual understanding: Apple will stay out of the x86 pool and MS will produce decent Mac software. (For that matter, how tied are XP and 2K to the x86 platform? What would it take to port them to Apple hardware?)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, very sad. Judging from reaction to this and similar stories, a great many Slashdot readers believe that the law should treat them differently and that they aren't responsible for their actions.
Probably attributable to Slashdot demographics, but the attitude risks provoking a lot of restrictive legislation.
Confidential is a classificiation. If you work someplace where people think it isn't, fix it quick.
This makes as much sense as setting fire to the local police department just to test its fire alarm.
You have only this outfit's word about what they did. Who's to know that they aren't a front for a foreign power or other group? (It does happen, you know.)
Lots of vulnerabilities exist everywhere, not just computer networks. Unsolicited and unauthorized attacks on another's property is a crime.
Violating the law in private is pretty stupid, too. And if you feel inclined to engage in a little civil disobedience because you're "mounting a case against an unfair law", put a good defense attorney on retainer and be prepared for jail time. Laws aren't struck down as unconstitutional all that often. Be prepared to wait out the appeals process.
Just telling the court that you don't "believe" in the law will only produce passing annoyance. Citzenship incurs a legal obligation to obey the laws, or pay the price.
There's more on the CapWin Site.
Not to rant, but most other countries behave the same, or worse. I've lived in 3 countries in addition to the U.S. Only one (the UK) actually held free elections, and I don't see many UK politicos running for sainthood.
...the businesses selling all that outrageously expensive media time -- and also donating big money to politicians -- are usually the same media corporations raising a fuss about copyright infringement. In the end, it gets back to oligarchic and monopolistic control of technology versus dispersed control of technology.
I'll bite.
It isn't the legal system, it's our political system. It is outrageously expensive to run for office here. Even candidates for House seats -- like Grubb -- often spend 7-figure sums for advertising and other campaign publicity. Get into state-wide or national offices and the cost escalates. We can't seem to get our collective head around real campaign finance reform, and spend endless cycles of legislative energy talking it to death.
End result: If your running for office, or in office planning for the next campaign, the first thing on your mind is going to be paying for it. Whether or not that constitutes bribery is, I suppose, a matter of definition, but there's no argument that it influences politicians behavior to the detriment of the public.
As for lobbying: If you want a politician to pay attention to you, the first thing you have to do is get in front of his or her face. I.e., on the calendar and in the office. By and large, any organization or "movement" with one or a few specific interests it wants to push isn't going to sway votes in Washington unless they have an office in D.C. actively working on their behalf. (Yep, that's called "special interests".) Of course, when a there's a genuine groundswell of opinion shifting with a constituency on a particular issue, even novice politicians pay attention (or lose the next election.)
So... i agree with Plotkin and Lessig that if those opposed to the DMCA/RIAA/MPAA/Berman et al legislation don't start playing the game, there's little chance that many politicians will be moved to change their votes. They would if this issue becomes visibly important to the broad U.S. electorate, but that kind of awareness isn't there . Elections are still won on bread-and-butter issues. Copyright infringement isn't one of those issues.
Agree that copyright law in the States has been warped to the strong benefit of corporations who have artists under contract, and doesn't serve the purpose it was intended to serve. Ditto on DMCA, RIAA and all that. Also think commercially successful "artists" like the money as much as the rest of us, and would probably think twice about a rollback of copyright to something considerably shorter than their lifespan. With exception, too, I suspect authors and entertainers who begrudge the money the media companies keep out of sales of their work would quite happily keep it all if the corporation disappeared. (I guess I don't believe that "artist" equates to "saint".)
Why would people continue to generate IP if they had no way of protecting their interests in it, and that includes deriving revenue from its sale?
Indeed. Let's hope the court's readiness for a public airing of its annoyance continues.
To be more accurate, the ruling says the DoJ's suggested interpretation of the law was incorrect. The court explicitly stated that its ruling was not made on Constitutional grounds. The court, rather unnecessarily, also noted the Congress is free to amend the FISA legislation.
Right. Although U.S. lives would be put at risk if FISA proceedings were public, many people here jump to the ill-founded conclusion that Clinton and/or Bush set up some sort of secret tribunal in order to toss Americans into dungeons without due process.
Remember, FISA was created in response to abuses of power in the Nixon adminstration. By openly reprimanding the DoJ, the court is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. It has also effectively placed the dispute over the extent of the DoJ's ability to share FISA-derived intelligence data with criminal investigations back to Congress, where it belongs.
>> "Destroying government property (or most other uses of violence / force by non-uniformed combatants) in order to change policy is the definition of terrorism. "
Dunno if that's the precise legal definition of terrorism in the U.S., or any other country, but let's just say that odds are actions that meet that definition are illegal.
"Non-uniformed" is often a shorthand reference to combatants who are not part of any formal military apparatus of a recognized sovereign state.
I read the opinion, and my question still stands. Many posters here seem surprised and outraged that the FBI surveils and wiretaps anyone, much less people believed to be involved in foreign intelligence activities. I'm not at all surprised that Ashcroft's DoJ wants to push FISA to its limits and beyond, but the court has behaved in a responsible and appropriate fashion.
The process of declaring someone an enemy combatant is subject to legal review, too. If you believe someone is being held as an enemy combatant without cause, get a lawyer and go to work.
In my book, if you carry arms against the U.S., you're a combatant and you're an enemy.
FISA has the power to enforce its findings by simply rejecting requests for warrants. The DoJ, just like you, has the ability to go to court if they think FISA is misintrepreting the Patriot Act. That's what Ashcroft is doing, in an attempt to allow evidence collected via FISA-style taps to be passed along to criminal investigations. Whether or nor you agree with Ashcroft, the balance of powers remains in effect.
you cant exactly make wiretap info available to the public.
No, because that would defeat the purpose of the tap.
it is unfortunate because it allows people like the FBI to do these things.
Please name another U.S. organization charged with federal law enforcement. Who should we trust? You?
but if i were an enterprising individual, id just simply get all of the wiretapping records and sell the service of alerting mobsters that their phone is tapped.
First, you can't get the records. Second, if you did, you'd follow the mobsters into court.
To the best of my knowledge, FISA is not a trial court. It simply provides a secure means for law enforcement agencies to get legal approval to conduct surveillance in certain cases within the U.S. The "secure" part is critical, because lives, one way or another, are often at risk.
If someone is charged and brought to trial, it'll be in the press.
Judge Kotar-Kotelly is one of the powers-that-be. The FISA court seems to be doing what it's supposed to do, and playing a little politics in the press by releasing this report. Good for them.
FISA has been around since the Nixon administration, and was established to curb abuses at that time. It's been frequently discussd in the press since 9-11. It isn't a Star Chamber and it isn't secret. It meets and adjudicates in secret (for good reason), just like thousands of government and private-sector meetings every day.
Here's a question: Would you rather see the FBI wiretap anyone at will, without being compelled to get approval first, or rather see them compelled to convince a court that they have cause to do that?
Apple wants your money, not your support. They've obviously made a decision to stay away from direct competiton with Windows boxes.
Your motivation is understandable, though. Jumping off the x86 ship can mean dumping your investment in that architecture.
I suspect NASA would indeed pay someone to build Saturn-5 class boosters if Congress would fund it. The problem is that the only reasonable things to do with that much lift capability is to return to the Moon, go to Mars, and put a real space station in orbit, not the little mini-station we've got now.
No one in a leadership position in the U.S. has the vision and political will to commit to this, so don't hold your breath.
Balloons only work in the atmosphere. Maximum altitude is around 20 miles. Even if a balloon could reach an altitude safe for orbital flight -- say, 100 miles -- it would fall right back to Earth because it has no propulsion system capable of reaching orbital speed.
Methinks Apple and MS long ago reached a mutual understanding: Apple will stay out of the x86 pool and MS will produce decent Mac software. (For that matter, how tied are XP and 2K to the x86 platform? What would it take to port them to Apple hardware?)